We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.
I'm sorry, but this is the type of claim of someone who gets news from the Joe Rogan podcast.
Ukraine managed to defend its capital from annexation, liberated thousands of miles of territory, and managed to improve its protection of civilians thanks to air defense systems, has lower casualty rates than Russia, and now is starting to create a buffer zone into Russian territory.
How isn't this a sign that it didn't help?
Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course. The drip feed has been one of the worse strategic decisions in this conflict, almost like there's no strategy in place.
But Ukraine needs to develop its deterrence.
Something that people seem to not realize is that the Minsk Agreements refer to two accords (Minsk I in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015) aimed at ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine, specifically in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia.
That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved. With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress, given his emphasis on unconventional approaches to negotiation and relationships with key stakeholders, potentially (and hopefully) providing a better opportunity to bring an end to the long-stalemated conflict.
> Now... could, and should, Ukraine receive way more help, on time to help them even more? Of course.
I am sorry but providing additional aid at this stage would likely prolong the war rather than bring about a resolution. This protracted conflict has already pushed global economies toward collapse, with ordinary taxpayers shouldering the financial burden of a war they never chose to participate in. It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
I simply stated that's the same level of shallow analysis and severe lack of understanding of what's at play, sprinkled with mystical thinking and conspiracy theories, which is prevalent in the right-wing media and amplified by Russian propaganda. I don't think it's inappropriate, it might just be a coincidence.
> (...) where pro-Russian separatists had declared independence with alleged support from Russia. That said, while Russia claimed that Ukraine failed to implement the Minsk Agreements, this does not justify a military invasion. Diplomatic mechanisms were available to resolve disputes, and both sides bore some responsibility for the lack of progress on Minsk. It can be attributed to challenges and shortcomings on all sides involved
Just to point out two red flags here:
- The separatists didn't have alleged support from Russia, there were Russian troops in both Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. By the way, those regions were at peace until Russia sent "little green men"[0]. The same happened in Georgia by the way, in 2008. Where do you think "separatists" got a Buk 9M38 to shoot down a commercial airliner killing 300 people? [1]
- Russia did not just claim that Ukraine failed to implement UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts of the Minsk agreement, Russia itself failed to comply with the agreement - and they were the ones on sovereign Ukrainian territory, killing Ukrainians. An agreement goes both ways, so the general sense was that Russia never looked to abide by the agreement, just gradually turning Ukraine ungovernable with cancer from within, by subverting the Ukrainian constitution.
From the words of Macron in the talk with Putin before the escalation of 2022:
"They are in front of my eyes! It clearly states that Ukraineʼs proposal should be agreed with representatives of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in a trilateral meeting. This is exactly what we propose to do. So I donʼt know where your lawyer studied law. I just look at these texts and try to apply them! And I donʼt know which lawyer could tell you that in a sovereign state, the texts of laws are made up of separatist groups, not democratically elected authorities."[2]
> With the election of Donald Trump, there may be an increased opportunity to revive diplomatic efforts and achieve meaningful progress
So your idea of a diplomatic effort is to appease a dictator with the subversion of Ukraine, a sovereign country of 40 million people, and target of genocide, that was at peace and posed a threat to no one. To the point of surrendering their nuclear arsenal in exchange for the guarantee of their sovereignty - with the signature of the USA representatives.
> It is irrational to continue pouring taxpayer money into a long-stalemated conflict without a clear path to peace or resolution, particularly when domestic priorities are being neglected in the process.
The only irrational thing is to push the Russian narrative that Ukraine should be left on its own, for the illusion of internal stability that stems mainly from propaganda.
Again, this just confirms the same ill-informed narrative Joe Rogan-type podcasts are pushing around, some of these podcasts being funded by Russia Today operations.[3] I won't claim its deliberate, but as time passes it increasingly looks like so.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrain...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
[2] https://babel.ua/en/news/80618-bloodbath-and-involved-zelens...
[3] https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...
Are you in support of Israel too, by any chance?
It all began when President Yanukovych rejected an agreement he promised to sign with the EU (which was, and is, a public document with known the terms) in exchange for a deal with Russia, of unknown terms and vague promises, and framed with threats.
This was a 180 turn that led to the Maidan Revolution and the impeachment of the president. It was the decision of the President against the will of the majority of Ukrainians who voted to elect Yanukovych, who promised close ties with the EU including signing the Association Agreement.
This was followed by Russia invading Ukraine in late 2013/early 2014 with "separatists"/"little green men".
By the way - "pro-Russian" Ukrainians didn't revolt against the EU Association Agreement, it got Yanukovych elected.
So again, you have strong misinformed opinions aligned with the Russian narrative, of a subject you don't seem to know that much about. That happens to be oddly aligned with some alternative media like The Rubin Report, Tim Pool, etc.
> In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia.
> Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine.
These statements are false?
> aligned with the Russian narrative
That is merely coincidental.
This is a broad irrelevant statement. The signing of the EU Association Agreement was part of Yanukovych's campaign, and Ukrainians elected him. The "pro-russia factions" is a Russian construction.
A small fraction of the Ukrainians might have disagreed with the impeachment, but it was THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS in the parliament that impeached the president - BY MAJORITY VOTE[0]. So the elected deputies did what they believed was in the interest of those who elected them.
That's democracy, and Ukraine is a democracy. Those who were unhappy could change their vote to elect other deputies on the following elections.
No Ukrainians wanted their families killed, and cities occupied and razed by Russia.
That's yet again, another Russian narrative spin, along with the "Ukrainians don't have agency/will of its own" implication.
> In the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, many residents harbored pro-Russian sentiments due to historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Russia.
Ukraine was a former soviet state, where many Ukrainians have family in both Ukraine and Russia. I don't get the point you're trying to make from "sentiments" to a war of occupation with +1.000.000 casualties, 10.000.000 refugees, +25.000 kidnapped children.
> Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, separatist groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, supported by local pro-Russian factions, declared independence from Ukraine.
Yes, there was a theatrical display of claims of independence, and Russia did some more of it in 2022 with the "referendums" of occupied territory - which of course no sovereign country recognized, except for Syria, and North Korea. What's your point here and why do you stand with Syria and North Korea in these recognitions?
----
So, overall those statements are decontextualized, rendering some of them wrong or irrelevant/misleading. If you were trying to make some point here, I don't see it, just confirms what I said before.
I may be wrong, and I want to get an understanding as to why that may be the case.
That is the type of opinion is passed on by the vast majority of alternative media podcasts - it's shallow entertaining stories that give the illusion of understanding a subject.
The invasion of Ukraine is probably the most documented war in History, and you can get a very good understanding of the event in a short time with little effort. You can even access original documents, yet you prefer a low-resolution misinformed version of it.
(FWIW you know "entertaining" is debatable, and I personally do not find either position entertaining).
It's fun to believe you have an understanding of reality, that didn't require much effort to understand.
This is the main problem we're facing at the moment with regard to information: people mistake a thin veneer of anecdotes and stories, for knowledge with some depth, but they don't care because it feels nice to know a lot of shallow things.
The result is a wrong understanding of reality.
Just for you to understand, your current stance - I want peace so we can focus on our "internal problems", let Russia keep what they stole and Ukraine needs to figure it out on their own - will make a direct conflict with China inevitable, and that will be a war where you won't be sending just weapons.
What do you think would be a strategically wise course of action? Should we consider peace talks, take drastic military action like using nuclear weapons on Russia or Ukraine, or explore other alternatives? I apologize for being so extreme, but I struggle to see how simply providing financial aid and weapons - which are finite resources - will effectively resolve the situation. Should we attempt to drain Russia's resources[1]? Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid?
[1] Let us not forget history here though.
How do you go from peace talks to nuking Russia? What is the goal of nuking Russia? Do you want to go in and occupy the Russian Federation?
Ukraine is a sovereign country with borders recognized by 193 countries in the UN - including Russia by the way. No one, except Syria and North Korea recognizes occupied territory as being part of Russia.
The reasons are self-evident: if this precedent is opened, then it means we're back to pre-UN times where the strong can annex smaller countries. Countries might as well each get their own nuclear deterrence, and then you'll have nuclear proliferation. Which in case you might not be aware, was a victory to be able to prevent countries from pursuing this avenue.
What's wrong about giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, as we promised with the Budapest Memorandum?
They're not asking for nukes, they're not asking for troops on the ground, they just ask to be supplied with what they need on time. Don't make a theatrical display of it, don't drip feed it, just do what was done when we helped the Soviets win against the Nazis, but on a much smaller scale.
Providing financial aid and weapons is a small price when compared to the collapse of a global order that was won after WW2. Especially when you're giving them equipment that won't be used by the US and would be decommissioned - it's probably costlier to dispose of it than to give it to Ukraine.
> Is it even possible to achieve this without risking the weakening of the defense capabilities of the countries supplying the aid?
We can mobilize a global industry to produce mRNA vaccines in a short period of time, that requires specialized resources, we boast about being able to land rockets upright... somehow you think we cannot produce 155mm shells?
Are they asking for the means to achieve victory? If so, what does that entail specifically? When and under what circumstances would it be considered a victory for Ukraine? How much aid would Ukraine require for this to succeed? Would it be sufficient to deter Russia? Is Russia's production capacity worse?
Yes, and victory for them isn't taking over Moscow but guarantees their sovereignty, independence, and security.
That entails:
- reducing the capacity for Russia to strike Ukraine with long-range missiles;
- the capacity to disrupt supply lines and push them back into Russian territory;
- the capacity to strike air defense systems so Ukraine can secure its air space;
- the capacity to defend unoccupied territory;
- be part of a defensive alliance that guarantees Ukraine's defense in case of a future invasion;
- be part of an economic alliance that will allow Ukraine to rebuild and thrive;
> When and under what circumstances would it be considered a victory for Ukraine?
Victory will be achieved when their citizens can go back to their homes knowing they won't ever have to deal with a genocidal hoard that thinks Ukrainians don't exist.
> How much aid would Ukraine require for this to succeed?
As much as necessary, and I think Western allies and partners can sustain this - if Russia can, the largest economies surely can too.
> Would it be sufficient to deter Russia?
Russia is already paying a high cost in human lives, the economy and culture, they're on a self-destructive path - so just let them do their thing, continue to accelerate this path, and keep supporting Ukraine.
> Is Russia's production capacity worse?
There is a shortage of labor in Russia, with the unemployment rate extremely low, they reached a cap. Now they're trying to outsource production to North Korea.
In conclusion, so you have a historical framing: you'd be in the group of Nazi Germany appeasers, and we saw where that led the world to - WW2. I'm not saying you're a Nazi sympathizer, or anything like that, far from it. I'm saying that you're misinformed to the point that you prefer to sacrifice a country of 40 million people that represents democratic values (even if they're in their infancy), that wants to protect it and be aligned with us... and that won't impact the privilege US has in the global stage.
In exchange for the illusion that... companies that increase consumer prices will drop prices? That housing will suddenly pop out of the sky... housing that migrants mainly build? That the multibillionaires will start to pay more income now that they're part of the government?
That's all to blame on Ukraine aid receiving old military equipment meant to be discontinued and decommissioned, right?
I did not intend to say that we should sacrifice a country.
What would happen if Ukraine "peacefully" would give that region to Russia? I am not saying they should, I am asking what would happen, considering it may not lead to more bloodshed and it may not mean "sacrifice" either, as long as they can continue living there, just under a different rule. Is this not an option? If not, why not?