Ok, I don't know what's real anymore. Maybe I am just going to buy elden rings and hope by the time I am done dying 3000 times this whole thing has blown over and my globe won't be outdated.
There's been a civil war in Ukraine fought by Russian-backed separatists for a decade now, so he already has a say in it's political future. Ukraine as it is now would have never been allowed to join NATO in the first place.
Why should you care? Well, not sure if that's a rhetorical question or not, but obviously that is related to why he invaded.
By "Say in it's future" I meant "final say". Sorry.
As for his reasoning I get that he has reasons, I just can't agree that these reasons are valid enough to justify his actions. I think people are using the term imperialism too liberally. I don't see NATO's expansion as a form of imperialism because it's not like one country holds dominion over all of the others.
kkck said:
Ok, I don't know what's real anymore. Maybe I am just going to buy elden rings and hope by the time I am done dying 3000 times this whole thing has blown over and my globe won't be outdated.
Well, let's see. IF he's successful with the breakaway states in Donbas (and actually assimilates them as opposed to leaving them independent, whatever that means), with the addition of Crimea, he'll be 1.5% there by landmass.
And only in a country that's not in NATO, and thus no duty to defend. (i.e., on easy mode compared to, say Poland).
Well, let's see. IF he's successful with the breakaway states in Donbas (and actually assimilates them as opposed to leaving them independent, whatever that means), with the addition of Crimea, he'll be 1.5% there by landmass.
And only in a country that's not in NATO, and thus no duty to defend. (i.e., on easy mode compared to, say Poland).
Which is why I used the word fever dream. It's clear from the things he says that's what he wants to do, but since it can't actually happen, he's doing what he can.
Well, let's see. IF he's successful with the breakaway states in Donbas (and actually assimilates them as opposed to leaving them independent, whatever that means), with the addition of Crimea, he'll be 1.5% there by landmass.
And only in a country that's not in NATO, and thus no duty to defend. (i.e., on easy mode compared to, say Poland).
Woke should've been played out by now. Just like snowflake and SJW.
I can't imagine ever being offended by someone pointing out that I care about people too much. Or that I hold folks to a high standard and am fine with calling them out on it when they fall short.
It's why nowadays instead of shaming people for being bleeding hearts, they try to claim that we're not really bleeding hearts. That we're virtue signaling because we want people to think we're morally superior to them, but we're just all talk. That we don't put forth any effort to live up to the high moral standard we hold other people to. Either that, or we're tricked by some mastermind who wants to stir discord by making us focus on social justice above "real" problems.
For all the shit I give Republicans, I can't for the life of me ever remember claiming they don't actually believe what they claim they believe. Well... maybe I've called the politicians performative, but that's just them playing up what they believe for the crowd. Like Candace Owens. I think she's really a Republican, but she pushes the post racism America thing too hard... considering she won a lawsuit based on racism when she was a kid.
Imagine virtue-signaling so hard you break the fifth wall.
I mean, the above post is EXACTLY what virtue-signaling is. "Look at me, I'm so virtuous, more virtuous than you, I even avail myself to call you out when YOU 'fall short'.... I just care so, so much. I even care TOO MUCH. It's, like, my only flaw - caring too much."
This is the post equivalent of answering the notorious interview question of "What is your biggest weakness?" with "My biggest weakness is that I have no weaknesses."
The irony is too much that it's literally painful. I think I just grew a tumor reading that. At the same time, it's almost inadvertently art. So, we'll call it a wash. A tumor well worth the suffering.
It also serves as a transparent attempt to remove arguably the biggest (legitimate) critique against so-called SJWs (which at a time was self-ascribed despite the baggage it now has that you don't want to associate with) so you appear impervious to criticism, and in effect more virtuous. 'The fault doesn't lie with me/us, but rather those levying the claim against us.'
No, no one really believes you don't believe what you say you believe. We just find you absolutely programmed and conditioned.
Woke should've been played out by now. Just like snowflake and SJW.
I can't imagine ever being offended by someone pointing out that I care about people too much. Or that I hold folks to a high standard and am fine with calling them out on it when they fall short.
It's why nowadays instead of shaming people for being bleeding hearts, they try to claim that we're not really bleeding hearts. That we're virtue signaling because we want people to think we're morally superior to them, but we're just all talk. That we don't put forth any effort to live up to the high moral standard we hold other people to. Either that, or we're tricked by some mastermind who wants to stir discord by making us focus on social justice above "real" problems.
For all the shit I give Republicans, I can't for the life of me ever remember claiming they don't actually believe what they claim they believe. Well... maybe I've called the politicians performative, but that's just them playing up what they believe for the crowd. Like Candace Owens. I think she's really a Republican, but she pushes the post racism America thing too hard... considering she won a lawsuit based on racism when she was a kid.
Well, the second option renders the first moot, whether the first is true or not.
I'm sure every dictator dreams big. But we live in the real world.
I've heard Putin called a lot of negative things. Many if not most true (but perhaps not all). But I don't think anyone mistakes him for stupid.
Although, it does 'feel' like he's acting differently now. Desperate almost.
Anyways, I don't believe that a New Russia Empire is driving his foreign policy. I STILL don't think he wants the entirety of Ukraine for keeps.
But I'm also prepared to be wrong. Again. It's only my opinion. As I mentioned, I thought he was just posturing in regards to Ukraine to try and leverage what he wanted by the optics he was creating. I thought he'd at most send troops into Donbas to fight Ukranian forces there. I was obviously very wrong. It's easy to look at this in hindsight and say it was obvious he was planning to invade all along but I'm not sure he had determined to pull the trigger until the very end, waiting to see what the response was.
Newsmax is a conservative opinion site, so clearly it's full of shit. That video is a clear proof.
And the anti-woke idiots are way worse than "woke" people. But then again, "woke" is a stupid-ass word used incorrectly by asshats who don't want to take others into consideration, but cry when others don't take them into consideration. It's both funny and embarrassing.
1.- Er, does it make sense for russia to be worried at all about military threats? To me it sounds plain absurd that anyone could take this seriously. Russia can claim whatever it wants but what actual evidence has there ever been that NATO is an actual existencial/military threat to russia? What concrete action has nato ever taken that would make a reasonable person believe that it is a military threat to russia? In the sense that it could conceivably take unjustified, unprovoked military action against the russian federation. I just don't buy that nato existing is enough for russia claims of a military threat to them to be taken seriously.
2.- The bit about russia being concerned about efforts to undermine it's influence in the region is fair though. This is definitely the crux of the issue. Which is what has happened over and over... russia loses influence hence it invades as much as it can without going so far that it would start ww3. The reality is that russian interests do collide with US-EU-nato interest.
3.- Ok, on the cultural side of this I am at a loss. Reading about russian politics is downright confusing to me and the only other time in my life I've thought of ukraine is when watching a seinfeld episode where kramer and newman annoy an ukranian on a train. That said, there's a difference between something being an actual concern or said concern being actually about potentially losing influence.
1. NATO started as a military deterrent to Soviet Union, and it persisted even after it's collapse. The aftermath of that is not something forgotten by Russia. I think it goes beyond vanilla military threats, but those exist as well. It was pretty much known that Bush wanted missile installations in border states, so inviting Georgia and Ukraine line up with that. Analysts can call it paranoia all they want, this is the hand that's been dealt. There is a reason why Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile and isn't interested in disarmament. The reason why Russia can so freely invade Ukraine is because Ukraine gave theirs up (they originally belonged to the Soviets obviously and they had no real means to launch them, but that doesn't remove the threat of them having the 3rd most warheads at one time.)
2. It loses influence via promise of West-oid Democracy, foreign investment, and maybe even a little IMF-based slavery sprinkled in. My main issue with takes on this entire situation is acting like NATO-backed interests are generally "good", because they're in opposition to Russia. Too much of that leads to an untenable situation like we have now.
3. There is a difference, sure. But in practice this is still the world having to deal with a nuclear power that's likely backed by China and India to some degree.
By "Say in it's future" I meant "final say". Sorry.
As for his reasoning I get that he has reasons, I just can't agree that these reasons are valid enough to justify his actions. I think people are using the term imperialism too liberally. I don't see NATO's expansion as a form of imperialism because it's not like one country holds dominion over all of the others.
Fair enough, but the crux of my point is it doesn't matter whether you or I agree that his reasons are valid enough or not to justify what he's doing, he has 6,000 nuclear warheads.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
That's awkward....
Also the reports of Russian troops surrendering because they "didn't want to kill people". Big if true, but my bullshit meter might still be tripping.
More sources pointing to casualties/deaths - on both sides - and including civilians - for the entire 8 year timeline, up to invasion. I believe someone was saying that the war had ended...
A good article, very objective, of what life is/was like in Donbas for the civilians, the true victims. Whether separatist or pro-Maidan/Ukranian/integrationist or whatever group, life sucked, and it was due to, shocker, both sides being assholes and unyielding.
Gotta wonder, wherever was the oh-so virtuous EU and UN since a very large group of people were suffering?
Years of conflict have exacerbated the economic woes of Donbas, once an industrial powerhouse. Authorities in Kyiv should take steps now to aid pensioners and encourage small trade while also planning ahead for the region’s eventual reintegration with the rest of the country.
