this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
69 points (87.1% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
5572 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean it's literally what happened. It implies a bit of a rosy anthromorphization of the many varied and impersonal security interests that lead a nation-state to war, sure, but factually speaking, that's how it went down.
So, help me understand what literally happened.
This one has some actual credibility to it; although I don't agree with the summary it at least seems plausible. Can you send me some arguments I can read for why it was more a coup d'état than a legitimate revolution? What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych's removal?
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
Around how many literal casualties were there in this war? How many Russian-speaking Ukrainians killed or wounded by NATO weapons (pre-Russian-invasion, if you're going to argue that the Russian's special operation was in defense of Ukrainians)?
Can you tell me more about the planned fortress? Where is the base or bases planned to be built, and where can I read more about the timelines or other plans?
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to "draw" Russia into attacking Ukraine?
I'd agree with this part, yes. I'm still lost as to why it's the US's fault that it happened.
Can you elaborate on the provocation? Did Ukraine, for example, annex any territory from the Russian Federation, or bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border? If they had done either of those things, what would you say a reasonable response from Russia would have been?
How many people injured in this ethnic violence? What was the aim of the special military operation -- removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory? I'm still trying to get a sense of what is your assertion of what the goals and motives were on the Russian side.
Completely irrelevant. Mrs Newland made it absolutely clear that it was a coup. What Ukrainians wanted never played any role.
Proxy army, so the UA. Around a million men at the start of the SMO.
14.000 to 15.000 dead. With many, many, more fleeing to Russia. Russian opposition parties were demanding military action under the clause "responsibility to protect" (created to justify the bombing of Serbia and creation of Kosovo) for years.
The US wanted Sevastopol.
The last 8 years for example. The two Minsk agreements, which Ukraine never honored, and which the german chancellor, the french president and the the ukrainian president at the time outright stated were only means to stall for time.
Coup 2014, arming of the UA, full support of local fascists. All done by the US, in the open.
The UA shelled civilian centers in Donbas (still does btw), after the region seceeded. 14 to 15.000 dead. Hospitals, hotels, markets, schools, all was shelled. Whenever they lose against russian forces they still tend to shell Donezk. recently they hit a bus stop and killed a lot of civilians. A few wqeeks before they fired artillery mines into the city, those things look somewhat like children toys.
Honestly, did you sleep the last 8 years? The war is ongoing since then, Russia just joined in last year. It wasn't a new war or anything.
A revolution involves a change in the mode of production. This was a coup with a change of government, regardless of its legitimacy.
The issue at hand is whether NATO had a role in it. The statistics are by-the-by.
Nobody is denying that Russia has troops in Ukraine, and I doubt anyone is denying that it gave military support in Eastern Ukraine before the invasion. The question, again, is whether NATO was involved. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I doubt very much that this is literal language. Does it change the meaning if it was imagery, instead?
It's in the suggestion that Ukraine could join NATO, which lead to putting NATO nukes within the 'safe zone' of Russia's nuclear program. That is, NATO could nuke Russia before Russia could retaliate.
Shelling ethnic Russians. See links above.
Within Ukraine, the parts inhabited by majority ethnic Russians. See links above.
See links above. Minimum 10,000, likely over 14,000 deaths. Tens of thousands injured. Millions displaced.
If you believe Russia, demilitarisation of and denazification within Ukraine, to prevent the indefinite targeting of ethnic Russians. If you believe NATO? Who the fuck knows; they change their interpretation every week.
im not sure if you're posting in willful ignorance or trolling, but the result is about the same either way
I'm about to head out of town for a while, so I don't really have time right now to talk about all your questions. But here's a quick overview. It's is a fairly old article from just before the war, but I thought it was a pretty good overview of how we got here. There's a great deal of citations, and I suggest you fact check them for yourself.
This is fascinating. Thank you for sending me this. It doesn't change most of the attitudes and conclusions I've been stating in this thread; I would point to two excerpts from this article as reasons why:
Both of these seem like very accurate and evenhanded summaries to me. Things that have been said to me elsewhere in this thread -- that Yanukovych's removal was a Western coup, and that Ukraine's relationship with ethnic Russians in the east could be described as "pogroms" -- seem very inaccurate to me, and I would actually point to this article's summary of those situations as a pretty good description of what the honest truth is.
If you're sending me this to poke a hole in the "Ukraine good, Russia bad, protestors good, Yanukovych bad" narrative, then I support you in that endeavor. The real actual facts are important whether or not they support your or my ideology. I'm guessing that I'm getting such a high ratio of downvotes to responding messages because people assume I'm some kind of anti-Communist stooge... I assure you I am not an anti-left or universally-pro-US-government person.
It is super weird to me to see people who oppose the very real violence and imperialism that the US government engages in, who at the same time support violence and imperialism from Russia or China. From me in my point of view, as a person who's generally leftist and generally anti-US-imperialism, it makes no sense. That's why I want to have this long conversation about it and see if maybe there's something I'm missing, but nothing I've seen so far has made any inroads as far as convincing me that there is. But, that being said, this article is showing me some sides to the whole equation I wasn't aware of before. So, thank you.
Also... Mark Ames is still around and still doing journalism in Russia? How is that possible? Is this real life?
I'd challenge you to find a single example of Chinese (PRC) imperialism, even with a simplistic definition like "invading other countries"
I will give you one more good article to read from last year, but you have already been given dozens of informative sources : https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
Please just take a break from commenting, being defensive and having a debate attitude. Read/watch the information already given to you, it has all been explained. If you still think the thousands of Russian speakers killed in the east of Ukraine is not a pogrom then you are not "just asking questions" in good faith.
Glad you read it! I'm sitting at the airport right now, so I'm going to hope someone else talks about it further with you. There's plenty of reasonable people here. I want to clarify first though that I think most (all?) people here are not big fans of modern Russia or the war. I think the best result for all involved at this point is a swift Russian victory, but the best result would have been NATO minding its own business or working to broker peace instead of instigating.
Did you mean to respond to me lol