Good lol. Death to nazi

And your point is?

Whataboutism is when your blatant hypocrisy and lack of logical, moral and ideological backbone is pointed out. Whataboutism is when it is made clear you do not actually hold the values you claim to hold.

That’s the mantra of a hypocrite

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

okay so here is the old president of ukraine…

some impressions

fun little wikipedia rabbithole

Fun little CIA Rabbit hole

OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and the (in this case prolematic) Linar Passing of Time …

Feel free to add comrads … Wisdom llies not in choosing your trench … it lies in viewing both trenches…

While I’m happy to see you’ve come back on some of your previous points, your edit is pretty fuckin heinous to say the least.

To say ukraine went ‘full tankie’ while the people you’d happily refer to as tankies gave you sources and insight just makes you come across as disengenous. The word tankie has no meaning and you use it to just denounce stuff you don’t agree with.

Also, to say it’ll be the people of Donbas who’ll break peace treaties after ten years of living in a war zone without any evidence that that’ll happen, even with evidence pointing to the contrary, is just fuckin vile.

You say “NATO brought this on themselves” like they weren’t joyous at the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine but I think this isn’t true. The west has worked closely to recreate the Ukrainian Army from the ground up since 2014 (when it was useless) because they knew this was a possibility. This war-launched idiotically by Putin-has benefitted the west alone. Not Russia, and obviously not Ukraine.

-Ukraine is now irrevocably tied to the west and will be for the foreseeable future. Before this, western intelligence agencies were worried Zelensky was too pro-Russian. Not anymore.

-Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian in their mother tongue are now anti-Russian for the most part.

-Lots of juicy money for western MICs.

-The bulk of the Russian Army is tied down in Ukraine and so cannot be used elsewhere-massive limiting of Russia’s strategic manoeuvrability.

-Russian economy damaged (not as much as they thought it would, but it’s still damaged) and large-scale brain drain of well-educated Russians who oppose the war who have now fled to Georgia and will seek to move to the west most likely. Also Russians living in the west who are more likely to be liberal will be much less likely to come home.

-Strong consolidation and reification of Ukrainian national identity, meaning far less likely for Ukraine to see Russia as a ‘kin state/brotherly nation’ akin to Azerbaijan/Turkey.

-Exposes and emphasises the fragmentation and factionalism within the Russian state and security apparatus, (see: Wagner).

-Kills lots of Russians whose families may eventually turn against the state once this war drags on and nothing good comes from it.

What I mean to say is that NATO isn’t suffering at all-at least, the Americans and Brits aren’t. They’re overjoyed! You can’t “bring something on yourself” forlornly if you’re openly working for it, then it’s just a success! I mean I don’t think they necessarily worked only for the invasion but basically just various means to bring Ukraine into the western fold, of which this was just one (probably not the ideal) option of many.

It was not a ‘rational’ or sensible reaction to NATO encroachment. I mean realistically with nuclear weapons the idea that a land invasion of Russia could happen is ludicrous, but even removing that factor there were countless other mechanisms at Putin’s disposal to achieve his strategic aims. This invasion was a terrible choice and it only happened because (A) the Russian leadership is full of yes-men who are unable to criticise Putin, (B) because the Russian leadership has become increasingly isolated from the realities on the ground in the last few years and so VASTLY misunderstood how the war would go. They thought it would be like Georgia (though the Georgia War was a mess from a Russian perspective they won anyway because of the vastly unbalanced correlation of forces).

Yes, this is a sensible and thoughtless war, but I think expecting Ukrainians to just give up against an aggressor is fruitless. They will not do it as long as they believe they can win (see Zartman’s concept of a mutually hurting stalemate), which both sides currently believe they can. Plus if it’s a frozen conflict and more or less even, why would Ukraine ‘surrender’? Yes, I think the eventual only possible end to this war will be a surrender of some territory (more likely is simply a frozen conflict), but I don’t believe it is politically viable atm and so it is pointless to support it. If Zelensky agreed to surrender territory he’d risk being overthrown and probably killed by the far-right and ultra-nationalist sections of the army/state. The morally best situation would be a return to the status quo ante bellum and a referendum in the east and in Crimea monitored by international IGO/NGO bodies not tied to any particular state, but that wont happen.

The balance of forces is even enough that one side admitting defeat is implausible until the mutual damage from the war is much higher and both sides come to realise it is unwinnable (this is a subjective understanding even if there are objective measures of ‘mutually hurting stalemate’.

edit: formatting

I’m sorry no. Every time someone tries to say “oh well Russia was just pressured by NATO” that’s all they leave it at.

How?

No really, explain. Explain how the only option for Russia was to invade their neighboring country and steal land. What negative effects would Russia be feeling right now if they hadn’t invaded Ukraine?

“Well NATO was pushing up against their borders”

So fucking what?! Just because your country is so shitty that your neighbors choose to ally with someone else is not an excuse to invade them!

including things like the 2014 NATO-backed coup of Ukraine

AAAAaaaa

What you just said should be a bannable offence. President reneged on his election promises, people demonstrated, president sent out goons (both criminal and police) to deal with them, more people demonstrated, president passed laws (without having the votes) to make the country authoritarians, more people demonstrated even more, NATO countries “backed” protestors by sending… politicians. Who talked and negotiated, recommending compromises, the protesters were having none of that. After a while Yanukovich fled to his masters in Russia and, being AWOL, got removed from office.

None of that was a coup, which involves toppling of the government by government insiders. It wasn’t really a revolution either because nothing fundamental about the state changed, though yes Berkut got dismantled over the egregious police violence they committed, but that’s reform, not revolution.

Then, there have been multiple completely democratic elections since then. So all in all, big picture glossing over details: President didn’t want to keep his election promises, people were opposed and wanted a different president, then they had themselves exactly those elections. Call it a special electoral operation I’m not even using that term tongue in cheek. In more mature democracies where presidents don’t take orders from foreign governments it would’ve taken the form of “presidents wants something, people are vehemently opposed, president resigns, new elections”.

I notice none of those are located in the area labeled Russian Federation.

It does: It dissuades the aggressor.

Germanic tribes, and this continues over to Ukraine culturally (because Rus), had the battle cry “better dead than slave”. A village would fight down to the last woman, elderly, and child. Because even if the aggressor overcame them they’d be left with nothing but their own losses. Thus, they wouldn’t even try.

If Russia is allowed to get away with this, Taiwan will be next. A gazillion of small-scale empires in unstable regions all around the world will say “well, seeing that noone cares our time to get away with it”.

Millions if not billions of people more will be dead.

Ukraine has lost. They are not getting their separatist regions back.

[citation needed].

In any case Ukrainians disagree with you and keep on fighting. Heck even if Russia occupied all of Ukraine they’d keep on fighting. It’s not in your hands whether they fight or not, and their motive is just, so why not help them? Because you’re a defeatist? Come on.

Oh you are disgusting

Minsk I a treaty they’ve signed that was about greater autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts like them being allowed to speak russian a treaty that was very quickly broken.

Minsk II a treaty that did the same thing which again was broken.

…broken by the separatists. Also Russian was never outlawed.

Ukraines position was a restoration of the 2014 borders aka they want Crimea back which sorry is just not reasonable,

It’s unreasonable to not give in to a conqueror? It’s that “Pacifism is when I kick you and you don’t defend yourself” thing, again.

I DON’T CARE ABOUT SOME IMAGINARY LINES.

You may not. The people living in those areas (fled or not) do, though. They do care whether there’s rule of law, whether they have a say in how things are run, whether there’s a criminal installed at the top of things by the occupying force. After Ukraine got its independence many Tatars returned to Crimea that should tell you something.

Ukrainians, no matter the ethnicity, don’t want to be ruled by Moscow. It’s as simple as that. Before the war, some still had hopes that good relations with Moscow are possible, but not any more. Do you want to be ruled by Moscow? See neighbours disappear in torture cellars?

Are there any OSCE election monitor results you want to back up your “coup regieme” claim?

Also, the breakaway Russian puppet states were the ones to break the ceasefires.

Ah, the old myth about the poor disenfranchised Russian minority. Who, pray tell, might have an interest in propagating such narratives? A neighbouring belligerent empire, perhaps?

I disagree with this. No, I don’t think Russia wants to ‘annex’ all of Ukraine per se, I think the original goal was to invade, quickly topple the government, then set up a puppet state which would be subservient to Russian interests. This would perhaps be combined with an annexation of much of the east. It was set to be a more successful version of Georgia 2008 (which from an operational level was a bit of a screw-up, but Georgia was weak enough that it went well enough anyhow).

Ukraine had signalled its willingness to stay out of NATO before the invasion started. Access to the Black sea was definitely an issue but not the primary war goal, hence why Russia initially directed its most intense attack towards Kyiv (it was not a feint, Russia dedicated a huge amount of manpower here and made an earnest attempt to sweep through the capital here). I think it’s pretty obvious the Russian government doesn’t care at all about ethnic Russians/Russian speakers as this war has made life a hell of a lot worse for most of them. Plus the accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Donbass was vastly exaggerated and a clearly cooked up justification.

What would you call the annexed regions if not conquered? “Liberated”? Get a grip

“If we make sure every last Ukrainian dies, they will finally have peace”

• ^This guy^

You leave out the scenario of Russians getting kicked out of the country. Which is going to lead to Putin being sent to his Dacha, and if not and he somehow clings on Ukraine having all its territory opens NATO membership which means that the Russian general staff is going to shit bricks and rather putsch than attack.

This is unviable. The best weaponry available to Ukraine was shattered against the Russian frontline-they can barely even take a few villages, let alone Melitopol, and let alone Crimea and the rest of the country! There is no indication that Ukraine has the strength to launch successful counterattacks. In Kherson and Kharkhiv Russia retreated for tactical reasons as their positions were undefendable-this is not the case w/ the current frontlines. It is utopian thinking.

He a) wouldn’t do that and b) since when is Ukraine antisemitic you’re confusing it with… pretty much all other countries in that area and c) you don’t need to invoke far-right fucks (who are a tiny minority btw) the rest of the country would, well, send him to a Dacha.

No, I don’t thjink he would.

“Ukraine” isn’t a ‘real’/reified entity, what I am saying is that the far-right has disproportionate strength in the Ukrainian army (and, to an extent, the state intelligence apparatus) because of the power vaccuum created by the 2014 invasion and the collapse of the pre-existing Ukrainian Army, then in 2022 because it was the best organised forces in the areas seeing the most intense fighting. While Nazis do NOT have much support among the population, the state still has a strong strategic-structural liability to these far-right groups…largely thanks to the actions of Russia!

And ever if: At that point we’d be in the situation many predicted in the first days of the invasion: Fall of the government, but Ukrainians then fighting a partisan war. And Ukraine right now is just in way too good a position to switch to that.

Yes, I agree, which is why I don’t think Zelensky will sign a peace. It is unviable.

All in all, the way forward to quick peace is clear: Help Ukraine win this thing. It’s both the best option from a direct humanitarian POV by cutting the war short, as well as the best option for wider humanity and the future: Not allowing states intending to conquer to get away with such behaviour. Discouraging wars of aggression is important by itself and one of the reasons why Ukrainians fight so hard, they see the universalism in their own national struggle it just all aligns so well.

I do not see how Ukraine can win this-even with western weaponry they have failed in their counteroffensive. What else do they need? Western boots on the ground is certainly not possible.

They might not know it. There hasn’t been a lot of particularly complex analysis here and they very well might be operating on the level of “bad news bad, good news good”.

Honestly, why are we even wasting time here?