2) What would be considered a Russian 'win'?
This war has turned into a major geopolitical disaster for Russia. Whatever the outcome of the war, whatever disasters are inflicted on Ukraine, it has exposed Russian military weakness that no other event could, significantly eroding Russian soft power in the process. They've embarrassed themselves against an army that's much smaller in size and with no naval force. Prior to the war, Russia had a much higher reputation for its military might compared to now. You had publications like
The Economist, in 2020, who were praising Russian military reforms as "impressive" and "dazzling" and even suggested that NATO nations would need to step their game up to match Russia lol. Does anyone anywhere still believe in this perception of Russian military strength today? No. Their military has been meme'd to death already.
In my opinion, this self-induced decline in their perceived strength is a significant setback for Russia. It's hard to see how they can come back from it without having a really long period of reform/reorganization, which is probably not even possible under their current existing political structure.
And that's their military we're just talking about. Then there's NATO. The war has unified NATO more than ever now, which almost definitely will lead to long-term higher investment in NATO military powers. NATO has also expanded to Russia's borders and right next to a key submarine and nuclear missile site as well. NATO's expansion with two major nations, Finland (and potentially Sweden soon), represents nothing short of a major geopolitical crisis for Russia - all entirely self-inflicted thanks to dumb Putin.
Europe is becoming more self-reliant when it comes to their natural resources as a result. No one will trade with Russia now or invest in their country and Russians will be looked with disdain wherever they go. Well, particularly in the West. They'll still have support from anti-West developing countries and authoritarian developed countries though. We can already see that with Putin's recent visit to North Korea. Assholes teaming up with assholes. Go figure. They have sabotaged their future economic growth.
Russia will remain much weaker strategically for the foreseeable future on a geopolitical scale.
> I'll call it whatever it's being called in the country I'm in.
Exactly, you're using Putin's words. You aren't 'neutral' then. So my point still stands.
Why should we trust anything Russia says when they:
- Won't even call it a war.
- Admit that their soldiers have committed war crimes.
- Weren't truthful about what happened to Moskva and Saky - with stories that rapidly changed and contradicted themselves.
- Were using a nuclear power plant as a shield.
- Are indiscriminately attacking populated areas with no clear military targets, using weapons they know are inaccurate.
So, can you can see why the Russian point of view on this 'special military operation' is considered to be almost worthless and a way to hide what's really happening. How daft do Russians have to be to believe that the biggest military attack in European soil since WW2 is not a full scale war?
What talking points exactly? Calling out the west on their hypocrisy?
Pick your poison: 'NATO encroachment', 'Ukrainian Nazis', 'saving' Russian speaking people, 'what about Iraq'?
You and a few others keep bringing up the 2nd Iraq war as if both conflicts were identical. Only that the 2nd Iraq War wasn't anywhere near as black and white like with this current conflict. It's false equivalency, but also a sad attempt to deflect and excuse what's happening in Ukraine. 2 wrongs don't make a right anyway.
Iraq War:
1) Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator.
2) An international coalition had already had to drive Saddam back once before.
3) Saddam's regime used chemical weapons, gassing his own people and likely did want nuclear weapons (mainly because Iran were also working on them at the time).
4) The US and allies did not indiscriminately target civilian areas. There were numerous instances of mistakes happening, but they didn't flatten entire cities.
5) The Americans and Brits did not systematically commit war crimes. There were soldiers there, so unsurprisingly some isolated acts did occur, and the person(s) involve were taken into custody to face justice. Accountability doesn't exist in the Russian military.
6) There were and have been numerous attempts to get the Iraqis back to governing themselves. It wasn't an attempt to steal territory.
Compared to the Ukraine war:
1) Ukraine has a democratically elected government, with no major concerns as to the veracity of the election.
2) Recent Ukrainian governments had committed no atrocities. Isolated incidents in a civil war fueled by Russia, yes, but nothing systematic.
3) Problematic parts of Ukrainian society have either been cracked down or reformed (all prior to the current invasion). It still is an ongoing process as they begin to grow more westernized.
4) Russia has a history of meddling in Ukrainian domestic affairs. Invading Crimea and unofficially Donetsk and Luhansk.
5) Russia (and the separatists they back) have a record of atrocious war crimes. Ones that look systematic.
6) Russia have clearly targeted civilians.
7) Russia have leveled cities.
8) Russia is attempting to steal territory that doesn't belong to them.
There were a few reasons to invade Iraq on top of the bullshit weapons of mass destruction stuff. Saddam not only had chemical weapons, he'd actually USED them. Now, enough for an invasion? Likely not, and those who either falsely pushed the WMD stuff, or clung to it, were idiots (Bush administration in particular). There were obviously some oil interests too. But was it evil to depose a ruthless nasty dictator? The 2nd Iraq invasion may have not been right, but it was not evil.
The mentality behind it was certainly different from Putin's. The invasion of Iraq was born of an overwhelming desire to do something in the face of a new enemy (post 9/11 war on terror) that couldn't be fought on a battlefield. It wasn't evil that drove it, it was frustration, stupidity, anger and misplaced aggression.
But what Russia is doing is pure evil. Putin is straight up trying to grab land, to extend his power and fortune by whatever means necessary. The most 'base' of reasons. Russia have precisely zero good justifications. Even for their own gain this was an utterly stupid move (in hindsight, as they will have been the ones snuffing up their own propaganda about how great the Russian armed forces were more than anyone else. Talk about a major geopolitical fail...
And might I remind you that one of the largest protests ever, in the world, was against the start of the invasion of Iraq. Millions of people, across many countries protesting the war, openly. Meanwhile in Russia, Putin still holds a 80% approval rating. It's only gone up since the start of the invasion. Any attempt to protest the war inside Russia will have you in handcuffs and taken into custody. Autocracy at its finest.
I'm not sure why I've wasted my time outlining this, but here we are. Perhaps this will put someone else going off on some false and stupid points of comparison.
> So, we should just undeniably take the word of Ukrainian sources?
Okay, so the Ukrainian side is mostly being shared, but considering what the Russian side have been confirmed to have done, not to mention Russia's history, their constant lies, and the bare naked fact that their invasion is in the completely wrong, why should we take anything the Russians say seriously anymore? Besides, there's plenty of other sources besides Ukrainian sources. We went over this already.
As I understand, you support the continuation of the conflict together with the death of citizens and soldiers alike? So you agree with Zelenskiy drawing everything out, denying peace negotiations?
Do I want war? No, of course not. I hate war. There's often a diplomatic solution, but not when one nation is indiscriminately attacked by an imperialist aggressor. I support Ukrainian's right to self-determination and their sovereignty in the face against aggressive invaders. Russia is free to end the fighting at anytime, and the war will end. They chose to attack, and now they either have to decide to end it and leave, or they have to be forced to leave for however long it takes. The West should continue to supply and support the Ukrainians for as long as necessary because Putin is banking on seeing western support and aid being stopped, strategically speaking.
And that's not even touching upon how it's frankly morally right to support Ukraine against having their country invaded, snatched from them, destroyed, and their people brutalized all because of some stupid dumb nationalism and one crazy man's demented dreams of rebuilding the old Russian empire.
You apparently watch/read the news, yeah? Did you miss the part when Putin compared himself to
Peter the fucking Great. You do know what that means if Russia gets to steal territory in Ukraine? How do you think the People's Republic of China would take that? They will see the West and Democracy as weak and will invade Taiwan at some point.
So you agree with Zelenskiy drawing everything out, denying peace negotiations?
Time and time again, negotiating with Putin's Russia serves only to buy time for Russia to prepare more attacks later on. Every negotiations with the Russians is just another opportunity for them to deceive you. Actually, if the Russians are calling for negotiations, it means that no negotiations are far worse for them. Anyone with a brain knows this. The Ukrainians are well aware of this, which is why they persist in their fight. They know they have to fight out of necessity because the alternative is a direct threat to their continued existence. It's only after Russia stops murdering Ukrainian civilians and withdraws from Ukrainian lands talks could happen. Putin needs to be removed from power beforehand though.
By the way, Sevastopol, Crimea was just hit hard a
few days ago by Ukrainian missiles. Massive damage done to major Russian infrastructure at the heart of the Black Sea fleet (headquarters) along with dead Russians.
It blatantly crosses the red lines Putin has laid down for starting a nuclear conflict.
Well... we're waiting.gif
agree, peace negotiations. The U.S. taxpayers don't want to pay for this war. Ukraine was a corrupt country and still could be. Zelensky comes here in his army green clothing and begs for more money with no end game.
If a violent gang who lived next door broke into your home and took over several rooms. You fight them back to just 3 rooms, most of your neighbors give you weapons to help fight, but some people think you should negotiate with the gang... Also, this gang has already signed treaties in the past agreeing never to invade your home, yet here they are, and you're being encouraged to give up part of your home and make the same agreement. Would you negotiate with them or keep fighting? Negotiating in this instance is what appeasers do.
P.S. It's always telling when some people suddenly become fiscal hawks during times like this. At least I give credit to those (Americans) who have spent their entire lives railing against the bloated US military budget (over $700 billion annually). You're decades late for that bandwagon, buddy. That train already left the station.
Everything you say is on the side of Russia, and if you're not acknowledging that, then I can't help you. You blame and criticise everyone except for Putin, and it would be easy to believe that you work for the Kremlin. 
Member
