Can you be more specific about what this means? "at" the city as a whole? Randomly? At churches? Hospitals? Daycares? Are they targeting military targets entrenched, or just having a blast as it were?
Missiles have been fired at apartment buildings. Missiles have been fired at the city centre in Kharkiv, where children were killed when they and their parents left their shelter to get food.
Funny, that's what the news keeps telling me (all channels btw)... so you think this is an existential crisis for them?
While true, they're clearly on their own. Ukraine can't fight back, and help isn't coming. No one likes to take a loss and appease a madman, but at some point you have to think about self-preservation. Russia is burning proverbial bridges.
Ironically, the reason why someone might say anything approaching that is probably in part due to corporate out-sourcing. Something you seem to be perfectly fine with when it comes to Musk.
But when Israel-Palestine war was raging back in 2021, He was telling us to talk about other wars and stop focusing on Israel only, and stop being anti sematic. ______
That is quite a different conflict and I also did not claim the Israeli side is completely innocent.
I also did not claim that Israel should go march into Gaza and take it all via using vacuum bombs.
And yes, people should talk about all kinds of conflicts WHILE THEY HAPPEN. And I do that. But not as an excuse for other wars.
At least I would not claim that Turkey's war against the Kurdish was okay because the US invaded Iraq.
I think it's preserving it's interests by attempting to remove the threat of NATO military bases on it's largest European border. But for whatever reason Putin seemed to think that they'd be able to remove the existing government and install a puppet in the span of 3 days. So western (and even Ukrainian) takes about Putin never daring to invade were wrong and Putin's calculus about how easy it would be to get the job done were just as incorrect.
But again, how would Nato be a threat? First of all, you dont need to be in nato to allow nato bases.
Japan is not in Nato but has Nato bases. On the other hand, being in Nato does not mean you have many Nato troops stationed inside your country.
A country is a threat to another of it amasses soldiers near the borders, or weapons. That can be done in japan or any other country around russia, nato or not. That is NOT done in the baltics, Nato or not.
A country being in Nato can hardly be a threat if there are little or no Nato troops present.
There were 1200 Nato soldiers in Lithuania. 1200. That's it, that was what we stationed there. None in Estonia and Latvia. So how was Nato threatening Russia there with 1200 Soldiers? You are threatening another country if you are building up troops near the border, like Russia did in Ukraine. If Nato would amass 100.000 permanent soldiers near Russia's borders, i would not argue that they are threatening Russia.
I am saying that nobody in their right mind can claim 1200 guys make Russia anxious.
You do not need to be in Nato to invite other country's soldiers into your own country. On the flipside, even if Ukraine would be in Nato, unless Nato decides to station countless of soldiers there, there is no threat for russia. Much like there was no threat in Lithuania for Russia.
And it also has to be said that the US, under Trump, just WITHDREW Soldiers from Europe. That European countries mostly have really low defense budgets and have never once threatened other european countries, including russia, via military.
Nato was on its way to die from old age. The US didnt want to be involved in Europe anymore, Europe wanted to keep spending very little on military.
In that situation, nobody can claim Russia was threatened by that just because Ukraine wanted to join Nato without Nato even giving it an affirmative reply.
This is just not Nato's fault. In no shape or form. It just didn't do anything to threaten Russia. Any example of it actually taking steps that can be interpreted as hostile came from the Bush Era and that was more than ten years ago and got taken back when Russia complained.
Putin is waging a war in which he increasingly targets civilians via mass bombing because he fails to make military gains in other ways. He does that because he wants to take Ukraine's right away to be a souvereign country and wants to change their government, That is why all these civilians and soldiers that defend their country have to die, because Putin is not willing to accept that Ukraine drifts away from Russia. And that IS the only reason for it.
Ukraine did not threaten to escalate the situation in any military way before, there was no insurgency or genocide inside it.
Like, what are you defending here? That Russia did not use nukes yet? Yes, they do not want to outright completely destroy the cities. But they are increasingly getting there, using vacuum bombs or indiscriminate bombing on civilian areas.
Welp, the firing of nukes is looking increasingly more likely. Granted it's not yet a probable event but I wouldn't be surprised if one is fired.... tactically to scare the other side.
What's so strange is seeing Vitali Klitschko in all of this.
Most of you probably do not know this but the Klitschko Brothers had been living in Germany for a long time and speak fluent German, and they were media stars here in the early 2000s.
Their commercial for "Milchschnitte" (like a sandwich filled with milk cream) is one of the most famous German advertisements of all time, every German knows it by heart.
And now he is in the middle of a war and the commercial rings back through my head.
In it they were reminiscing about their past and some Ukrainian sweet dish that they ate at university (which was terrible and you were supposed to eat Milchschnitte). It has this melancholic undertone, starting with "Vitali, do you remember..."
I hope there will be something left for him to remember.
And I know this comment reads a bit strange but imagine any American first-row celebrity in the middle of a warzone.
Based on how the conflict has turned out I don't think russia wants annexation anymore. It'd be lunacy and hubris... They'd be welcoming into their fold a territory and population that would actively loath putin and the russian government. Maybe they wanted annexation before but now it just doesn't seem like a rational alternative.
Nothing has changed. They didn't want annexation (being pie in the sky from the beginning), they wanted a puppet government to replace our puppet government. Among other things (NATO demands, Donbas demands, access to the sea). Claiming Russia was trying to take over Ukraine - and as a first step in reuniting all all former states - was foolish from the start.
There is no real difference between installing a puppet government and claiming Ukraine is 'little russia' and taking it over.
It is clear that Russia wanted to control Ukraine completely and turn it into a dictatorship again, just like Belarus (which has some independence from Russia, but still only can remain being a dictatorship because russia protects it).
And for that reason, Russia is destroying cities and killing people.
Based on how the conflict has turned out I don't think russia wants annexation anymore. It'd be lunacy and hubris... They'd be welcoming into their fold a territory and population that would actively loath putin and the russian government. Maybe they wanted annexation before but now it just doesn't seem like a rational alternative.
They might still want the same thing as before, but with less Regions.
If they control Kyiv and reinstall Janukovich (or someone else) claiming that he is the rightful president, they could cut Ukraine in two and say they control the east and the west is controlled in Lviv by some Ukrainian government.
That would hardly be acceptable, but he might think that the wartorn ukrainians and the west that opts for peace would accept that if the western part of ukraine then joins nato/eu and troops are stationed there to protect it. If Putin lets that happen, he might think they will lift some sanctions for him to promise he won't attack the western part of Ukraine.
But I do not see how that will work. The sanction package the west just started is not likely to be taken back without a serious withdrawal of troops. The public opinion in western countries would not allow its leaders to take back sanctions, even if they want to.
So, no matter what happens in Ukraine, Russia has like 2 years left until it financially collapses and has living conditions like in Iran (and possibly worse if the west cuts out gas and oil).
Maybe Putin hopes he can survive that somehow via china, but.... China is not russia's friend. China also would not like the westn to be united like that, especially not united against china. It might decide to keep Russia afloat, but the cost of that will be China ruling in Moscow.
I do not see a "good" best case scenario for Putin anymore. The only good scenarios i see for Russia are tied to Putin stepping down or being removed one way or another.
But they don't. There is no real difference between Ukraine becoming a region that is controlled by Russia indirectly via installing a puppet government or Ukraine becoming a Region that is controlled by Russia directly via a puppet Governor.
Both requires soldiers that force it and a regime change. Both has the same geopolitical implications.
Its also kinda absurd how dead set you are to talk about Ukranian Nazis from 2016 when the country is victim of a fascist government invading it right now.
Nothing has changed. They didn't want annexation (being pie in the sky from the beginning), they wanted a puppet government to replace our puppet government. Among other things (NATO demands, Donbas demands, access to the sea). Claiming Russia was trying to take over Ukraine - and as a first step in reuniting all all former states - was foolish from the start.
I mean, 8 days ago a lot of people thought the suggestion russia might invade ukraine was patently absurd. 6 days ago... what information was there 6 days ago that they definitely didn't want to annex the rest of the country? Did russia say anything on the issue that could be definitely trusted? It's also obviously impossible for putin/russia to even attempt to gather all formet soviet states, pretty sure no one has said he was attempting that. Most of those are either part of the EU or Nato... essentially out of reach without the whole "mutually assured destruction" thing kicking in.
But they don't. There is no real difference between Ukraine becoming a region that is controlled by Russia indirectly via installing a puppet government or Ukraine becoming a Region that is controlled by Russia directly via a puppet Governor.
Both requires soldiers that force it and a regime change. Both has the same geopolitical implications.
Not really. You act like there's no matter of scale or nuance. If we install a puppet leadership, does that mean the same as our own literal, physical occupation? Would that require the same amount of force to enact or maintain? Would popular support be exactly the same in two alternate universes?
We've meddled in, say, Honduras in recent history. And yet we don't have a strong occupation there. Honduras isn't a new territory of ours. We don't have a de facto duty to respond, etc. The civilians of Honduras do not live as if they lived in the US.
Its also kinda absurd how dead set you are to talk about Ukranian Nazis from 2016 when the country is victim of a fascist government invading it right now.
Is there a significant portion of neos in Ukraine, particularly in its military, or not? Have they been functional in anti-Russ operations and tapped as such or not? Are they currently active in the fields now or not? (hint: if you answer 'no' to any of these you aren't dealing in facts)
What's absurdist is how you keep saying 2014, 2016, etc when this has been ongoing right on up to invasion, and bury your head in the sand at ample evidence to prove that out. Pure denialism.
According to you, Ukrainians only started dying a week ago, right?
Your oversimplifications for a complex situation have been noted. I thought we've all moved past the 'is Putin a nice guy?' question or not. Of fucking course he isn't - next topic. Now, can you address any amount of nuance or actual facts of what's happening here?
Your response to all this basically begins and ends at 'the Russians have done this because they are pure evil, duh' - brilliant.
There are shades of grey between Gandhi and Hitler, and also different types and scales of war - just look at the Middle Eastern theater. If we need to oust Putin, we should do the same to our Western leaders as well. How did our NATO involvement in Serbia go again? Oh, civilian deaths and streets bombed for 2+ months under the guise of 'peacekeeping' Well... sounds about right. When we do it it's a righteous move with acceptable civilian losses, when the Russians do it every death (we're at ~500 in a country of 44M...) is amplified to be worth 1000x more - although we were/are more indiscriminate and this is a huge operation of scale; Ukraine is not Syria. Curious how that works. I'm just here stating facts. Russia would not create multiple humanitarian corridors if targeting the civilian population was its goal. Could that change if they get more and more desperate, sure. But, how exactly should a total invasion look like - should both parties agree to meet out in empty fields far, far off from a cordoned zone of civilians? OR are there embedded gov/mil targets in various parts of the large cities. Pointing out the obvious isn't shilling for Putin, hoping for his victory, or being an apologist for his illegal/criminal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Sometimes there are more than one thing at play, and not addressing everything leading up to this, and every conflict of interest shows YOUR bias, not mine.
I mean, 8 days ago a lot of people thought the suggestion russia might invade ukraine was patently absurd. 6 days ago... what information was there 6 days ago that they definitely didn't want to annex the rest of the country? Did russia say anything on the issue that could be definitely trusted? It's also obviously impossible for putin/russia to even attempt to gather all formet soviet states, pretty sure no one has said he was attempting that. Most of those are either part of the EU or Nato... essentially out of reach without the whole "mutually assured destruction" thing kicking in.
You yourself acknowledge that is not a possibility due to practicality over desire.
That hurdle existed a week ago as well.
See: literally any recent invasion versus occupation ever. Pick one at random. Putin, for all his flaws, isn't ignorant to this fact.
The only ones that were saying things like 'Putin is annexing Ukraine!' and 'Putin wants to reestablish the USSR!' were those repeating the MSM talking points, which repeat talking points from Langley.
Which is why for the better part of a week I've been telling you specifically that was never on the table.
Not really. You act like there's no matter of scale or nuance. If we install a puppet leadership, does that mean the same as our own literal, physical occupation? Would that require the same amount of force to enact or maintain? Would popular support be exactly the same in two alternate universes?
We've meddled in, say, Honduras in recent history. And yet we don't have a strong occupation there. Honduras isn't a new territory of ours. We don't have a de facto duty to respond, etc. The civilians of Honduras do not live as if they lived in the US.
But Russia is not meddling, Russia is doing a fullblown invasion that has the explicit goal of turning Ukraine into little Russia. The US simply never did that.
Is there a significant portion of neos in Ukraine, particularly in its military, or not? Have they been functional in anti-Russ operations and tapped as such or not? Are they currently active in the fields now or not? (hint: if you answer 'no' to any of these you aren't dealing in facts)
What's absurdist is how you keep saying 2014, 2016, etc when this has been ongoing right on up to invasion, and bury your head in the sand at ample evidence to prove that out. Pure denialism.
According to you, Ukrainians only started dying a week ago, right?
Your oversimplifications for a complex situation have been noted. I thought we've all moved past the 'is Putin a nice guy?' question or not. Of fucking course he isn't - next topic. Now, can you address any amount of nuance or actual facts of what's happening here?
Your response to all this basically begins and ends at 'the Russians have done this because they are pure evil, duh' - brilliant.
There are shades of grey between Gandhi and Hitler, and also different types and scales of war - just look at the Middle Eastern theater. If we need to oust Putin, we should do the same to our Western leaders as well. How did our NATO involvement in Serbia go again? Oh, civilian deaths and streets bombed for 2+ months under the guise of 'peacekeeping' Well... sounds about right. When we do it it's a righteous move with acceptable civilian losses, when the Russians do it every death (we're at ~500 in a country of 44M...) is amplified to be worth 1000x more - although we were/are more indiscriminate and this is a huge operation of scale; Ukraine is not Syria. Curious how that works. I'm just here stating facts. Russia would not create multiple humanitarian corridors if targeting the civilian population was its goal. Could that change if they get more and more desperate, sure. But, how exactly should a total invasion look like - should both parties agree to meet out in empty fields far, far off from a cordoned zone of civilians? OR are there embedded gov/mil targets in various parts of the large cities. Pointing out the obvious isn't shilling for Putin, hoping for his victory, or being an apologist for his illegal/criminal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Sometimes there are more than one thing at play, and not addressing everything leading up to this, and every conflict of interest shows YOUR bias, not mine.
What is ongoing? Which insurgency was ongoing in Ukraine or which genocide that justifies an invasion?
There are right extremists in positions of power in any eastern european state, including russia. That is hardly an excuse. So your focus on that is pretty absurd.
Your defense of the russian fascist invasion is pretty much "but ukraine is evil, duh, or at least s th about that was evil 2016 or s th idno but hey, i bet its natos fault". It is not even coherent.
But Russia is not meddling, Russia is doing a fullblown invasion that has the explicit goal of turning Ukraine into little Russia. The US simply never did that.
No, we typically try to get others to do our dirty work, and only invade when we don't have that. Using anarchists, separatists, terrorists, nationalists, opposing militants, mercs, etc has been our MO. Much, much better optics, less direct American deaths, a lot less cheaper, etc. We *still* reap the same benefits though, and the same civilian populations are still just as fucked. So, it's all gravy, right?
This is the FOURTH (by my count) time you've used the word "genocide" - I've not said there was a genocide.
I've already given you multiple sources, including an objective international watchdog, which illustrates that the civil war in Ukraine simmered and bubbled in the Donbas for the last 8 years. You didn't even acknowledge them. As if there isn't a full-scale genocide (words have meaning) that it was all unicorns and rainbows for that civilian population.
You claim we should talk about travesty WHILE it happens. OK, what about ongoing deaths in Syria, Palestine, and Yemen?
Syria - about 4000 deaths just in 2021 alone, about a half a million since that shit started. So just 2021 - i.e., recent - is EIGHT TIMES the death toll that you're freaking out about in Ukraine. I could similarly talk about other active war zones, but for some reason only this one is getting you riled up, because Putin man bad? Because deference to Zelenskyy? What exactly is so different about this, other than the media noise, tell me.
No, we typically try to get others to do our dirty work, and only invade when we don't have that. Using anarchists, separatists, terrorists, nationalists, opposing militants, mercs, etc has been our MO. Much, much better optics, less direct American deaths, a lot less cheaper, etc. We *still* reap the same benefits though, and the same civilian populations are still just as fucked. So, it's all gravy, right?
So yeah. You never did what Russia is doing there, so maybe stop talking about the US for one second of your waking life in a foncflict that it did not cause.
This is the FOURTH (by my count) time you've used the word "genocide" - I've not said there was a genocide.
I've already given you multiple sources, including an objective international watchdog, which illustrates that the civil war in Ukraine simmered and bubbled in the Donbas for the last 8 years. You didn't even acknowledge them. As if there isn't a full-scale genocide (words have meaning) that it was all unicorns and rainbows for that civilian population.
You claim we should talk about travesty WHILE it happens. OK, what about ongoing deaths in Syria, Palestine, and Yemen?
Syria - about 4000 deaths just in 2021 alone, about a half a million since that shit started. So just 2021 - i.e., recent - is EIGHT TIMES the death toll that you're freaking out about in Ukraine. I could similarly talk about other active war zones, but for some reason only this one is getting you riled up, because Putin man bad? Because deference to Zelenskyy? What exactly is so different about this, other than the media noise, tell me.
Wait, so every country that has a civil war inside it (one that would not exist if Russia did not cause it) is fair game to invade? That civil war did not have Ukraine killing civilians left and right or any very dangerous insurgency going on.
It is curious, isn't it, that all the parts of Ukraine that ukraine controlled did not start killing russians and only the two regions that russia controlled fought against ukraine. So where was the reason for the invasion? A civil war going on in which russia took part in? That is enough to invade a country and destroy its cities?
Not really. You act like there's no matter of scale or nuance. If we install a puppet leadership, does that mean the same as our own literal, physical occupation? Would that require the same amount of force to enact or maintain? Would popular support be exactly the same in two alternate universes?
We've meddled in, say, Honduras in recent history. And yet we don't have a strong occupation there. Honduras isn't a new territory of ours. We don't have a de facto duty to respond, etc. The civilians of Honduras do not live as if they lived in the US.
No US President has gone on record saying that Honduras shouldn't exist as a sovereign nation, the way Putin has with Ukraine.
Yes, there is a difference between installing a puppet regime and outright annexation, but based on Putin's stated desires, either would lead to the outcome he wants, so it's a distinction without difference.
21stcenturywire.com