77
I also don't know why they keep saying it's going to be a stalemate, Russia is already taking kilometres on the north which is more than Ukraine managed to take during the whole two months now.
Once the offensive burns itself out, it's almost certain that Russia will start a serious offensive of their own.
Imagine getting downvoted for saying that war is terrible
we are used to extremely bad faith comments about this war from liberals. If they had thrown in criticism about Ukraine/nato I guarantee it's not downvoted
This take betrays a lack of understand of the nature of the war. It wasn't for those things.
NATO expansion is certainly about resources, but it's fundamentally about destroying Russia like they helped do to the USSR three decades ago, both to get rid of Amerika's second biggest geopolitical enemy and to weaken China. The Russian intervention in the war was to prevent this, not to conquer Ukraine's natural resources (although I'm sure there are capitalists as well as people in the Russian government who want to do this). Intervening in the genocide in the Donbas after all these years also helped increase popular support for the Russian government, which does matter to some extent
I agree it really is a war between capitalists and as such I have a tendency to say fuck them all. But NATO nuclear missiles in Ukraine with a 6 min flight time.. yeah I can see why Putin reacted the way he did so gotta say in the final analysis the west provoked this war because they wanted to give Russia it's own Vietnam. Who loses? The people. Who wins? The capitalists. Same as it ever was.
That's why we need to focus on the goal of dismantling capitalism. that my internet friend is the real enemy
War is terrible, yes, it's also the only option sometimes.
Ukraine didn't ask to be invaded, or make the first strike in this warz they're being invaded by an agresssor and are defending themselves. Morally the assistance the west is providing is justified.
Or do you think they should just roll over and let Russia take over?
Are you aware of the context behind the war? The history of fascism in Ukraine since World War 2? The continued ignoring of Russia's security demands (very reasonable ones by the standards of a massive country) by NATO? The history of illegal NATO invasions and war crimes? The US-planned fascist coup in 2014? The almost decade-long mass slaughter of the people in the Donbas? It's also worth pointing out that Russia refused to recognize the independence of the Donbas republics for eight years, only advocating for autonomy within Ukraine after the fascist coup. What exactly do you think Russia should have done in this case? War is terrible, yes, but it's also the only option sometimes.
Ukraine launched their ATO in 2014 and the JFO in 2018. Ukraine did make the first strike as inconvenient that fact might seem to some.
Donbass had no say in Maidan nor did they vote for Poroshenko. The LPR and DPR asked to become part of Russia. The Minsk accords asking for autonomy within Ukraine was a compromise Putin wanted not them. Putin jailed anyone agitating for full-on direct intervention or even just aiding the Donbass republics, which is why February last year took some Russian commentators by surprise. The treatment of Strelkov pretty much supports the theory that initially, Donbass wishing to become part of Russia was an inconvenience to Putin.
Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia set the precedent that it doesn't really matter who the aggressor is. The western media is simply unconditionally against Russia.
Found the UkraNazi
Found the sixth form student.
Are you saying you wish I was a teenager so you could force your microdick on me?
I will take your position in good faith and just assume you are very misinformed. Not entirely your fault, if you only started paying attention to the region in the past couple of years this is exactly the narrative that has become mainstream.
A lot of the underlying circumstances of the war date back to 2014 (and earlier, but we will try to keep a fairly tight time frame here). A more pro-Russian leader (Yanukovych) was elected by the people, which they US obviously did not want, so a US-backed coup was staged. Surprising nobody, this is US Foreign Policy 101. You can read about Victoria Nuland for more specifics, but there are leaked phone calls of her explicitly selecting the next leader of the country which ended up being Poroshenko. The new administration rolled back several amendments to the constitution and began a widespread crackdown on its political opponents (specifically anyone with Communist ties or leanings) and banned anyone from any communist party of holding office. The crackdown renamed thousands of streets and cities named after famous communists and removed many statues of the same. Even the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic flag was banned. Totally not fascist.
The above was, incidentally, when Russia first become involved, which led to the annexation of Crimea that you are probably familiar with. It is also when the Ukrainian military began shelling Donetsk and Luhansk due to pro-Russian movements there.
Interestingly, a lot of western sources were much more open about fascist elements in Ukraine and crimes comitted thereof, because they did not have the vested interest in hushing those things like they do now. In the years leading up to the current operation, you can find many stories from the New York Times or Washington Post harping on Azov and neonazi elements in Ukraine, it wasn't a secret but people were just not paying attention to Ukraine at that point.
You don't need to take my word from it, but I do encourage you to do your own reading. Please let me know if you need any suggested sources and I will be glad to provide some.
I would say Amerika is the fundamental aggressor, this wouldn't have happened without the coup and Ukraine's people are being sacrificed for its geopolitical aims
Certainly not. They have the right to defend themselves at the very least
Who is 'they'? Guess you don't mean the native Russian speakers in Donbass who were told ok your political parties are now all illegal and you have to submit to Goldman Sachs and black rock corporate takeover of your resources?
Seriously look at the polls of actual Ukranians. They're not a monolith. Eye opening
They as in Ukrainians, as is clear from the context.
Citation needed
I know polls. The ones I've seen suggest that the majority of Ukrainians want to fight until victory and no territorial concessions. Obviously you've seen diffent polls.
Point still stands, THEY have a right to defend themselves.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/24/zelenskyy-big-banks-ukraine-financial-support/
Citation provided
And further about the idea it is a monolith here's the polling data
https://usefulidiots.locals.com/post/4318784/ukrainian-journalist-shocked-by-new-poll
So do Ukrainian citizens in Donbass who are being shelled by Azov Nazis have the right to defend themselves?
So it seems like nobody was told to submit to Blackrock. Instead Zelenskyy asked for investment money and got it.
Have you actually read the article and linked poll? What's the point you're trying to make? Seems pretty unrelated to what I said before.
Yes.
So Zelinski makes all the leftist parties illegal and agrees to sell off all the public resources to Goldman Sachs and that's a win. Hoo Ray. Goooo western corporate capitalism! Maybe they can end up like LA or Portland with a massive homeless population but lots of profit for the investors.
The polls are interesting. They show Ukraine is not a monolith so when you say 'they' have a right to defend 'themselves' you need to define which 'they'. Also no polling data at all from Crimea which is suddenly the new thing that needs to be 'saved' even tho most of those folks (90%) wanted to join Russia.
In the end it doesn't matter. It's a war bet capitalists and everyone loses except Lockheed, US LNG exporters etc. It's a big win for them.
True, People in Ukraine get arested and worse for being against Zelensky.