Let’s even say that what you are saying is completely true - because it is, to some extent. Russia is not 100% well intentioned. I am not a Putinist by any stretch of the imagination…
What you are actually suggesting is that the Ukraine, the most corrupt & impoverished country in Europe at that moment, is being defended by the USA and NATO, because they are a bastion of liberty… and the USA, and NATO, who absolutely have not killed millions of people around the world exclusively to further their own geopolitical position and economic interests, who have absolutely never massacred actual progressives and leftists by the tens of thousands in places like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, are totally backing the Ukraine because they have the noblest of intentions in defending… :::: puts on Zelenskyy’s gravitas and accent ::: democracy and human rights.
Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t), it does not mean that the US and the Kiev regime are forces of democracy and progress. In fact, if history teaches us anything, the fact that the Kiev regime is working closely with the CIA and the USA means it is going to be a corrupt, backwards state… Or, as Zelenskyy stated it himself…
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
OK, but let’s imagine that the entire East Coast is ethnically majority English, and they speak only English, and traditionally vote for English candidates that advance closer relations with England… And let’s also imagine that they were actually assigned to be part of America by England herself in the middle of last century for administrative purposes when England used to rule the US…
… And then, after the English speaking, English descent President, who was elected popularly, with the East Coast as his predictable heartland of su pport, many English on the East Coast were completely pissed off. New York completely voted itself to be a part of England right away – of course, English officers and pollsters were there to facilitate this and the numbers were wonky, but a lot of people generally accepted it at the time because it was reasonably explicable…
… And, like, we’ve now been fighting a civil war without the English for 7 years… the rest of America has agreed to take in tons of military support and training from China, and is lining itself up to become a threat towards not just the East Coast, but of course, England, and the English alliance system more broadly…
And the East Coast would be joining a comparatively 2, 3x more wealthy and less corrupt state that has its best interests at heart by joining England, as opposed to feeling like the neglected, actualy despised part of America, which is a rapidly failing state ruled by a series of corrupt oligarchs… Not entirely unlike England, but [i]measurably worst in terms of standard of living, at least…![/i]
It’s pretty complicated, isn’t it?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn’t happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
I said prosperity and not globalization for a reason, though… Globalization is a front for global capital.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades - I don’t think you’d dispute that, either. The only issue is that China has incorporated its emerging bourgeoisie into a more jingoistic, confrontational foreign policy outlook, IMO.
They are still just ruled by oligarchs like the West.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Yeah man I’m a freshman but I think I am cut out for the team.
You’re telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just…really bad.
Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly “popular”. Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don’t like him.
Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You’re telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?
Let’s go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it’s either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin’s rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.
And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being “more prosperous” could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you’re saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?
As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as “yes” that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the “results” except for those beholden to Russia. There’s a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the “secession” of eastern parts of Ukraine.
So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you’re implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like “bourgeoisie” and “capital”, you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating “Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)”.
Really, you’re not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades
More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.
Let’s even say that what you are saying is completely true - because it is, to some extent. Russia is not 100% well intentioned. I am not a Putinist by any stretch of the imagination…
What you are actually suggesting is that the Ukraine, the most corrupt & impoverished country in Europe at that moment, is being defended by the USA and NATO, because they are a bastion of liberty… and the USA, and NATO, who absolutely have not killed millions of people around the world exclusively to further their own geopolitical position and economic interests, who have absolutely never massacred actual progressives and leftists by the tens of thousands in places like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, are totally backing the Ukraine because they have the noblest of intentions in defending… :::: puts on Zelenskyy’s gravitas and accent ::: democracy and human rights.
Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t), it does not mean that the US and the Kiev regime are forces of democracy and progress. In fact, if history teaches us anything, the fact that the Kiev regime is working closely with the CIA and the USA means it is going to be a corrupt, backwards state… Or, as Zelenskyy stated it himself…
Ukraine wants to be Big Israel.
OK, but let’s imagine that the entire East Coast is ethnically majority English, and they speak only English, and traditionally vote for English candidates that advance closer relations with England… And let’s also imagine that they were actually assigned to be part of America by England herself in the middle of last century for administrative purposes when England used to rule the US…
… And then, after the English speaking, English descent President, who was elected popularly, with the East Coast as his predictable heartland of su pport, many English on the East Coast were completely pissed off. New York completely voted itself to be a part of England right away – of course, English officers and pollsters were there to facilitate this and the numbers were wonky, but a lot of people generally accepted it at the time because it was reasonably explicable…
… And, like, we’ve now been fighting a civil war without the English for 7 years… the rest of America has agreed to take in tons of military support and training from China, and is lining itself up to become a threat towards not just the East Coast, but of course, England, and the English alliance system more broadly…
And the East Coast would be joining a comparatively 2, 3x more wealthy and less corrupt state that has its best interests at heart by joining England, as opposed to feeling like the neglected, actualy despised part of America, which is a rapidly failing state ruled by a series of corrupt oligarchs… Not entirely unlike England, but [i]measurably worst in terms of standard of living, at least…![/i]
It’s pretty complicated, isn’t it?
I said prosperity and not globalization for a reason, though… Globalization is a front for global capital.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades - I don’t think you’d dispute that, either. The only issue is that China has incorporated its emerging bourgeoisie into a more jingoistic, confrontational foreign policy outlook, IMO.
They are still just ruled by oligarchs like the West.
Yeah man I’m a freshman but I think I am cut out for the team.
You’re telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just…really bad.
Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly “popular”. Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don’t like him.
Second, it is laughable you are pushing for the corruption narrative of Ukraine often repeated that serves Russian propaganda. What countries aren’t corrupt? Except there are more so that are corrupt. And Russia just happens to be way more corrupt than you wish to portray it to be. Most significantly, Ukraine wants to join the EU to be precise, but Putin sees EU admission as tantamount to joining NATO. They are two completely different things. Separate polling showed Ukraine don’t want to join NATO, until Russia agitated the Ukrainians prompting them to yearn to join NATO. Russian interference also made Ukraine want to join EU even more, and the same poll showed Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not feel neglected.
Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You’re telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?
Let’s go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it’s either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin’s rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.
And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being “more prosperous” could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you’re saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?
As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as “yes” that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the “results” except for those beholden to Russia. There’s a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the “secession” of eastern parts of Ukraine.
So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you’re implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like “bourgeoisie” and “capital”, you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating “Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)”.
Really, you’re not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.
More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.