The War in Ukraine (2 Viewers)

VoR said:
Isn’t it obvious? He should have given Donetskh and Luhansk to Russia and humbly promised never to join NATO. Putin would have been satisfied, the Ukrainian public would be delighted and everyone would have lived happily ever after. :)
Click to expand...

i think zelenskyy should've tried to take back control from the militias in the eastern parts of ukraine, yes.
nato should've been off the table, definitely.

do you find the present situation more preferable, vor? do you not realise putin will/can not back down? shall we start the fight to the death between "democracy" and "authoritarianism" today or tomorrow?
 
ButterTart said:
I wouldn’t have thought it’s that much of a stretch, the invasion was sudden and motivated by Putin’s self-interest, there weren’t any external forces that caused it.
Click to expand...

tons of people have been warning russia will react if ukraine gravitates to nato for decades. even this one:



nato is not a book club. it's a usa-led military organisation with a stated adversary in the face of russia.
 
the pleasure principal said:
of course, they're not, they're fucking bombing cities and killing people! this we can all see.

beyond that, there are two sides in this conflict - russia and the usa. ukraine has the bad fortune of being caught between them. zelenskyy chose a side and these are the consequences.
Click to expand...
Every country in the meridian, at some point in their history, had to make the choice of whether they're going to be west or east. It was practically impossible to stay somewhere in between and even if it they did it was going to be destabilizing for their weak and newborn democracies. Most of the countries chose democracy in the first chance they've had. I don't see how Ukraine could have done differently, unless it turned into an authoritarian autocracy. Evidently, these thrive on fences.
 
the pleasure principal said:
i think zelenskyy should've tried to take back control from the militias in the eastern parts of ukraine, yes.
nato should've been off the table, definitely.

do you find the present situation more preferable, vor? do you not realise putin will/can not back down? shall we start the fight to the death between "democracy" and "authoritarianism" today or tomorrow?
Click to expand...

I don't believe a pledge to stay out of NATO would have prevented Putin from invading.

Nobody finds the present situation to be a good thing. But is the world rallying behind Ukraine as they fight for their very existence preferable to allowing Russia to invade, suppress and destroy the democracies of former eastern bloc countries one by one while the west shakes their heads and tuts? Yes, 100% yes.

I know in the current climate it's very easy to be drawn to alternatives to the mainstream media line, but sometimes the most obvious explanation actually is the correct one. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not invade Russia. Ukraine are now defending themselves, which they have every right to do and we have a moral obligation to support.

Does the USA frequently overstep and meddle in world affairs, often to disastrous humanitarian results? Yes, of course. But the USA did not invade Russia. If it's between giving Ukraine the opportunity to choose the lesser of two evils versus expecting them to literally roll over and die (and take Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia down with them in the long run) then I think the choice is pretty clear.
 
Last edited:
VoR said:
I don't believe a pledge to stay out of NATO would have prevented Putin from invading.
Click to expand...

key word is believe. i have yet to see any evidence that putin was invariably going to invade ukraine, where is it?

big ron said:
But you’re being absurdly reductive, and saying this could all be avoided by just rolling over and letting Putin get his own way.
Click to expand...

where have i said that? unless by "putin getting his way" you mean" ukraine not joining nato".

absurdly reductive is calling putin hitler.
 
the pleasure principal said:
avoided war.

now that it's here, maybe negotiate and stop calling for escalation.
Click to expand...
Pretty strange take considering Putin started the war that Zelenskyy was trying to make diplomatic efforts to stop but ok.

the pleasure principal said:
zelenskyy ran to be president of ukraine on an anti-war platform, not i.

“Throughout my entire life, I’ve tried to do everything so Ukrainians smiled,” Zelenskyy, a former comedian and actor, said in his inauguration speech. “In the next five years, I will do everything so that you, Ukrainians, don’t cry.”

wink!

ps excuse me, i'm furious.
Click to expand...
I mean how can you write that knowing that he’s staying in Kyiv, will probably DIE if Russia manage to get hold of the city and has turned down the offer from the US to get him out of the country?

the pleasure principal said:
of course, they're not, they're fucking bombing cities and killing people! this we can all see.

beyond that, there are two sides in this conflict - russia and the usa. ukraine has the bad fortune of being caught between them. zelenskyy chose a side and these are the consequences.
Click to expand...
There is not. Zelenskyy chose no side. His country was invaded by a fucking crackpot dictator. He didn’t ask for this, no one in the west asked for this.
 
the pleasure principal said:
key word is believe. i have yet to see any evidence that putin was invariably going to invade ukraine, where is it?
Click to expand...

Because as has been frequently stated, Ukraine joining NATO wasn't even particularly on the cards in the near future! It's a total straw man argument.

And even if they were, Russia has absolutely no right to invade a neighbouring country to prevent them from making a democratic choice, however distasteful that choice might be to you. I truly don't understand why that's so difficult to grasp.
 
Soldi said:
There is not. Zelenskyy chose no side. His country was invaded by a fucking crackpot dictator. He didn’t ask for this, no one in the west asked for this.
Click to expand...

the usa has been sending weapons and money to ukraine and training their army. you have american officials on record saying they're financing the fight with russia in ukraine. once again, this did not happen out of the blue.
 
the pleasure principal said:
the usa has been sending weapons and money to ukraine and training their army. you have american officials on record saying they're financing the fight with russia in ukraine. once again, this did not happen out of the blue.
Click to expand...
The alternative of course being Ukraine being pressured by Russia rather than being able to make independent choices within its own system of government, with the threat of Russian military action being even more effective as they had no support to resist it.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
The alternative of course being Ukraine being pressured by Russia rather than being able to make independent choices within its own system of government, with the threat of Russian military action being even more effective as they had no support to resist it.
Click to expand...

hence chosen a side. hence consequences.
 
the pleasure principal said:
the usa has been sending weapons and money to ukraine and training their army. you have american officials on record saying they're financing the fight with russia in ukraine. once again, this did not happen out of the blue.
Click to expand...
Right, but then why is this Zelenskyy’s fault then? Of course the US would provide them with weapons, the Russian military is one of the largest in the world. It’s not like Ukraine have ever tried to intimidate Russia, they literally just want to defend themselves and their own land which Russian troops have slowly been invading since 2014.
 
VoR said:
Because as has been frequently stated, Ukraine joining NATO wasn't even particularly on the cards in the near future! It's a total straw man argument.

And even if they were, Russia has absolutely no right to invade a neighbouring country to prevent them from making a democratic choice, however distasteful that choice might be to you. I truly don't understand why that's so difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...

does it matter if they were not a de facto member but being treated like one, vor?

russia has no right, yes, i agree in principle yet look where that's gotten us.
 
the pleasure principal said:
i think zelenskyy should've tried to take back control from the militias in the eastern parts of ukraine, yes.
nato should've been off the table, definitely.

do you find the present situation more preferable, vor? do you not realise putin will/can not back down? shall we start the fight to the death between "democracy" and "authoritarianism" today or tomorrow?
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with the first part. But I don't think that he should have controlled this militia. One could even argue that taking them into the national army was an attempt to control them anyway. For me that's legitimizing it and it's a mistake. He could have been bolder than this, he could have had the authorities investigate them (if the lack of political will was what was still letting them be) and lead them to justice and let justice decide if there's room for far-right extremism in a democracy. Because not doing so, except from being ethically awkward, provided an excuse and a facade for the invasion, especially in the invader's home court. A really good leader would have dealt with his internal problem and would have stripped the invader from that excuse in one move.

But why NATO should've off the table? They have the right to choose their own alliances. If they don't it means they are not sovereign.
How do you think a good leader should have handled this?
The only ways to justify not applying for NATO to his people would be a) scaremongering the people with the threat of an incoming war (this would reactivate all extremist rights and he would lose the next election to some hard nationalist anyway) b) seek for a different sort of alliance (and we all know there's no alternative at least defense-wise) c) manipulate public opinion, press and social media, produce surveys that echo that the public consensus is against it etc (which would turn him to an insane autocrat and would have limited success and duration).
 
the pleasure principal said:
does it matter if they were not a de facto member but being treated like one, vor?

russia has no right, yes, i agree in principle yet look where that's gotten us.
Click to expand...
What? They're not being treated like a member otherwise NATO would be militarily engaged right now.

Also I don't think avoiding war at any and all costs makes sense as a policy, as the threat of war would be enough to get what you want at any time.
 
Queen of the Bay said:
I kind of agree with the first part. But I don't think that he should have controlled this militia. One could even argue that taking them into the national army was an attempt to control them anyway. For me that's legitimizing it and it's a mistake. He could have been bolder than this, he could have had the authorities investigate them (if the lack of political will was what was still letting them be) and lead them to justice and let justice decide if there's room for far-right extremism in a democracy.
Click to expand...

that's what i meant, that he'd left militias to fight the russian-backed separatists.
 
Last edited:
Queen of the Bay said:
They're invading Kyiv while the official argument was meant to be a "military operation" in Donetsk and Luhansk.
What more evidence is needed?
Click to expand...

first off, thank you for being one of very few actually engaging with

a lot of events have been leading up to this situation. whatever putin wants to call it, it's an illegal invasion and it wasn't planned overnight. what's his end goal? ostensibly it's to install a pro-russian government. which is no different to what the americans have been doing there albeit covertly. you want to talk about self-determination and sovereignty? read about victoria nuland, read about her husband.

my issue is the glorification of zelenskyy, which i reject to put it mildly, and the west's culpability in all this. look at how it's being met here.

i know it's tempting to look for clear-cut heroes and villains but we really should know better by now.
 
the pleasure principal said:
first off, thank you for being one of very few actually engaging with

a lot of events have been leading up to this situation. whatever putin wants to call it, it's an illegal invasion and it wasn't planned overnight. what's his end goal? ostensibly it's to install a pro-russian government. which is no different to what the americans have been doing there albeit covertly. you want to talk about self-determination and sovereignty? read about victoria nuland, read about her husband.

my issue is the glorification of zelenskyy, which i reject to put it mildly, and the west's culpability in all this. look at how it's being met here.

i know it's tempting to look for clear-cut heroes and villains but we really should know better by now.
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in looking into the culpability of the west for enabling Putin via Oligarchs.
 
the pleasure principal said:
i know it's tempting to look for clear-cut heroes and villains but we really should know better by now.
Click to expand...
We do know better, but...
VoR said:
Does the USA frequently overstep and meddle in world affairs, often to disastrous humanitarian results? Yes, of course. But the USA did not invade Russia. If it's between giving Ukraine the opportunity to choose the lesser of two evils versus expecting them to literally roll over and die (and take Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland and Estonia down with them in the long run) then I think the choice is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
To summarize the argument...
dnxfjo4l16m81.png
 
Kratz said:
They just bombed a children’s hospital so I think it pretty clear who the villains are.
Click to expand...
Ukrainians and the west according to some of the comments on Youtube. They have apparently installed military equipment in hospitals and schools for their "media campaign". :)
 
Queen of the Bay said:
To summarize the argument...
dnxfjo4l16m81.png
Click to expand...

i believe i made the point that it's "democracy" vs "authoritarianism" a couple of pages ago. (i don't want to get into great democratic practices like seizing citizens' assets without due process or tech giants policing speech or being ruled by corporations because i will be branded anti-democracy next.)

that is not the argument. the argument is should this war be the end game? to which i say no, we need immediate de-escalation, while others cheer zelenskyy who is actively calling for a no-fly zone i.e. escalation.
 
Ag said:
And what do you suggest the Ukraine give up so that foreign invaders leave their country?

At present it's looking like land, sovereignty, leadership and rights.
Click to expand...
Which if given up would lead to Russia thinking it can keep doing the same.

WHAT ARE YOU MISSING?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom