Oh, moving the goal post uh ? Pretty weak game you show here.
> Just like the US can stop this war at any moment by dropping support for Ukraine and pressuring them to negotiate.
Just like So you admit Putin could stop the war at any moment ? Good. Why don't you petition for that ? (oh wait, what happened to that guy that submission is about and who wasn't completely on board with Putin's leadership ?)
What prevents him from stopping this war anyway ? Why won't he ? What terrible outcome would he or Russia face if he just declared "okay, we showed the world we ain't no pushovers, we are now confident Ukraine and NATO won't try to invade us because we showed them how strong we are" ?
Anyway, that Putin guy has made it pretty clear he wants to knock off all of Ukraine. Only Russian shills and useful idiots believe otherwise. But that's not what you are, aren't you ?
Dude you outed yourself when you referred to Ukraine as Russia's "home turf". I guess I shouldn't point this out so I don't help, but, you're being way too obvious to be effective, unless this is actually some kind of pro-Ukraine reverse-troll designed to get us to respond to you with anti-Russian posts (in which case, you're doing fine, I suppose).
[EDIT] oh and this:
> What I find perplexing is how our leadership class in Washington could be so dumb to pick a fight with no possible upside.
Even if the rest of your post was entirely serious and even if all the other points were valid, this is nuts. If the West did force this war on purpose, holy shit has it ever been the greatest victory for cynical realpolitik ever. Russia's decline has been accelerated by a couple decades, at least. No possible upside? In what universe?
How? So far, it's just costing everybody, including the US, a lot of money. What profit is there for the US in having Russia destroy entire Ukrainian cities?
If Putin thought the US profited too much from this while his own country suffered, maybe he'd stop his war. But his narrative is that the US and the entire West is suffering just as much as Russia and they'll soon give up, so victory is within sight. It's not of course; it's just bullshit to let him prolong his war for just a bit longer.
I think I clearly stated that the US and NATO has had influence, sufficient to tilt the war in either direction, but I also think it's unrealistic to believe that influence can be leveraged to end the war let alone set the terms for peace.
The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.
Ukraine fought off the initial Russian attack without US and NATO, do you think they would stop fighting now if support were withdrawn? How exactly do you think the US and NATO could force Ukraine and Russia to the table? Do you think that eastern European countries would withdraw support from Ukraine even absent the US and NATO when Russian incursions on neighbouring territory represent very real threats to them? The entire premise that the US can end this war feels like a hopelessly naive relic of a different era.
My own point of view is that the only way this will end peacefully is with the full withdraw of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The question of how this can be achieved without Russia becoming destabilized and fracturing, which I don't feel is desirable, is certainly a concern, although I fear that that may be the only thing that leads to their withdraw. (See Timothy Snyder's piece on the subject: How does the Russo-Ukrainian War end? [1])
Your comment makes no logical sense whatsoever and is disproven by the reality on the ground: Russia will not allow Ukraine to align with the US. They are prepared to go to war for that and they are prepared to fight NATO for that and I’m pretty sure they’ll let nukes fly if push comes to shove.
> Why let this threat continue to grow?
Because this is not a fairy tale and there is no way to forcefully stop them without damaging the entire world potentially irreversibly. The US and NATO bit off more than we can chew.
The Ukrainian life is less valuable than the Finn life (surely we'd respond to an invasion of Finland)? Where shall we finally call Putin's bluff? Putin is destroying a large country in Europe out of conquest and empire building, like the tsars of old. The Ukrainians deserve better than the modern, weak version of America they have 'helping' them. There were so many ways we could have easily helped them over the prior seven years and yet failed to do so.
If the US is truly a superpower (that has no qualms picking fights with far weaker nations), let it begin acting like it.
If it is not, then lie down, cower and fade from the pretension of superpower relevancy. It's either or and it's time for the US to demonstrate whether it still has the grit and strength of past generations or not, to demonstrate that it deserves the global position it has possessed post WW2.
Aggressive war is inexcusable and I condemn all nations that engage in it including Russia and the United States. Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty just as all other nations do, but what you posted is shallow thinking.
Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of Moscow?" "how do I increase my ability to have Russian speaking agents plausibly cross into and out of Russia?"
Now put yourself in the mind of someone else seeking power and look at the map and, keeping an eye to history, ask yourself "what is the most effective way to destabilize Russia without involving US forces?"
Both parties are playing a very dangerous game that has a non-zero chance of ending with a nuclear exchange, limited or not. If peace was the goal then both sides need to agree to an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of both military and political forces. A new agreement needs to be reached that places Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country and both sides should pay for reconstruction efforts and restitution to survivors. Of course, peace is never the goal.
You don't seem to have a good understanding of the difference between the kind of war Russia is waging on Ukraine right now and an all-out war with all options on the table. The two are not comparable.
The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it.
The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.
The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them.
I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable.
Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
The war would be over if it weren’t for American funding. You think Ukraine will win? Ukraine is nothing except what American war hawks pay it to be, a surrogate army fighting a war funded by American dollars, using American weapons, fighting against America’s enemy. If you think Putin invaded because he wanted to get his hands on Ukrainian resources you’re a fool. This is America and NATO’s war, being fought for our interests, with our dollars, our tanks and missiles, using Ukrainian lives and territory because we fear Putin.
Ok, so you agree that the US couldn’t have done anything to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine. That‘s great.
Could you then explain why it would be in the interest of European countries not to react to Russia invading countries on their doorstep? It seems inconceivable to me that European countries wouldn’t have reacted with sanctions and arms for Ukraine even if the US had kept completely out of it.
It seems crystal clear to me that making sure that Russia cannot win this war is both in the interest of the US but also and especially the interest of European countries. You don’t want a dictator that invades neighbors and is successful at that at your doorstep.
"we" are doing nothing because "we" are not under attack; Ukraine did not have defense pacts with other countries, and the military aid took a while to get started because of the risk of Russia seeing it as hostility towards them, further escalating the conflict.
If it escalates, it will escalate bigly. If Russia attacks a NATO country, article 5 will / should kick in and the combined military force of 31 countries (with or without the US) will combine their strengths.
But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes. Nothing will matter anymore if Russia decides to use them. It doesn't matter if they lose hundreds of thousands of people, material, and are completely humiliated, as long as they have nukes, "we" cannot strike back.
At this point, wishful thinking that the Ukraine conflict seizes up again, keeps the Russian army occupied, and things cool off slowly. Or that the Russian leadership is replaced, but there's no guarantees it would be replaced by someone who would stop the war.
Let me tell you one thing — Yanukovich would go down, whether US interfered or not, there were enough of internal Ukrainian elites who wanted him to go. The whole US pushed Ukraine talk is delusional. Ukraine is not a pawn, it has it’s own interests which do not always align with the West.
If 2014 invasion was somehow related to Euromaidan protests, this 2022 invasion has no relation to internal Ukrainian politics nor to it’s foreign policy — nothing has fundamentally changed. The only reason why Putin attacked now is because he felt he could get away with it — Ukraine was asking for weapons since October and got only light anti-tank weapons to fight insurgency war. Nobody in the West pushed Ukrainians to fight, what West really wants is business as usual.
Yet now it becomes less and less possible due to Ukrainian information war.
Repeating Russian propaganda narratives is not what makes you a sudden expert on Eastern European politics.
HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a slam dunk.
> 1. You are repeating white house talking points...
2. You asked me to prove that your points align exactly with official US government and white house talking points? Well, here are just a few:
> a) You consider that this invasion is totally unjustified and unprovoked...
It doesn't matter about provocations its still unjustified. But i don't think it was provoked by anything other then Putins want to expand and recreate the Russian empire.
I think the accidently posted "victory article" is very telling on this point ill quote some of it for you.
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
The 'tragedy of 1991' clearly refers to when Ukraine became an indepedent country from Russia, something that Russia sees as a slight and a terrible part of history.
NATO isn't mentioned a single time in that victory article by the way.
> b) you uncritically....
There are 0 active duty USA troops on the ground in Ukraine fighting in the Ukrainian army. I think you will find what killed the peace deals was when Ukraine retook Bucha and saw for their own eyes the horrors that Russia had left behind.
Helping a country defend itself is not in way shape or form escalatory so i don't why you think America helping Ukraine defend itself is, America becoming involved in the war, anymore then every other country that has sent aid has 'become involved in the war'.
No one has seriously considered giving Ukraine nukes, although ironically it would be fitting considering thats what ukraine gave up in exchange for promises that Russia would not do exactly what they are doing now.
Are you able to admit that Russian soldiers, from the Russian army and not just random rebels where involved since 2014?, cause it doesn't seem like your ready for that reality yet.
b) You’ve also not seriously been able to consider that the CIA has been heavily involvsd (this time they sat out apparently) and wilfully ignored all evidence I presented to the contrary, including the Yahoo story.
Your Yahoo story doesnt say what you claim it does, it says that the CIA was training Ukrainian special forces in Ukraine this is 100% unsuprising.
c) You’ve totally ignored Naftali Bennett’s bombshell revelation that US blocked the peace deal he negotiated as tanks were moving into Kyiv, and both Putin and Zelensky had agreed to a deal in principle. You ignore that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said Putin can’t be reasoned with and that, even if Ukraine is ready to sign with Russia, the US and UK are not. You only repeat official talking points, and ignore every inconvenient fact.
Your ignoring that Naftali later retracted that statement entirely.
>> In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.
>> "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled.
Hey he thinks the same, to me Bucha was a massive turning point in the war.
> d) You say that Putin started this war to restore the Soviet union, something he always wanted to do. Another talking point that is even beyond what the White House says, because it tries to at least not veer into unsupported conspiracy. It is more akin to the extreme partisan bias that democrats or republicans have.
Do you want me to requote the victory article or is the reference to Ukraines succeeding from the Soviet Union in 1991 enough for you to know that this is obviously his goal?.
> e) You believe Russia is 100% responsible, and must be 100% defeated becauss it cannot be trusted. Another official talking point that is far from reality. Some blame Putin, some blame all Russians.
I believe the only person who can decide to leave Ukraine and end this war is Russia, and i think its very clear that Russia is only leaving with a massive defeat and will not willing leave before that.
> f) You say that NATO is purely defensive. Another talking point. Purely and uttely defensive. Very pure. Yugoslavia and Libya are whataboutism. How convenient. Same words used (“whataboutism”, “freedom”, “democracy”) almost in concert, to shut down any critical thinking or conversation that challenges the official claims, which are repeated VERBATIM (“purely defensive”, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “weapons of
mass destruction”, “hacked the election”, etc.)
I said NATO never invaded Russia which is true, but you also never answered my question about the last time that Russia invaded a country in NATO?.
> g) You say Russia has NO (not even a small one) legitimate reasons to be afraid of NATO in any way, shape or form. NATO is just people defending themselves against Russia, an aggressor country. Their red lines are illegitimate, and rejected out of hand. Every country (except US neighbors) has the right to make its own alliances and we will make sure of that.
NATO is mainly a defensive alliance against Russia yes, thats why, when Russian aggression increases so does NATO membership thats pretty easy to see.
1) First of all, I call it a war. That already violates the “official” propaganda
A lot of People call it a war now, even Putin has.
> 2) Second people who said NO TO WAR in Russia publicly got arrested for this. How can this be a vatnik position if the Russian government is arresting people for it?
You didn't read what i said, i said that the people pushing peace that doesn't involve anything but Russias complete withdrawl from Ukraine and the restoration of Ukraines full 1991 border is a vatnik position. These people don't actually want peace they want to freeze the conflict or to give Russia a reward for the invasion.
> 3) Third, I condemned Russia for arming rebels in Donbas and contributing to escalating the war since 2014. This may not be anti-Russian enough for you, but it is certainly not “uncritically accepting US propaganda”. YOU accept that CIA didnt do anything to escalate this proxy war! I don’t do anything of the sort.
You going to condemn the Russian army getting involved in 2014 too?.
4) I also pointed out that Russia did far worse destruction in Grozny and Aleppo and Homs. You claim that is also a vatnik. I guess we need to redefine that term too, to be basically meaningless.
Parts of Bakhmut look very similiar to Aleppo and Grozny, why don't you want to recongise the horrors of this war?.
I had to snip some of it cause the comment was too long for HN.
Russia needs to control Ukraine to prevent NATO. Ukraine is a pawn in a larger game. The US is prolonging the war to deplete Russia but the strategy is costing Ukraine lives, Ukraine cities, causing a European energy crisis and costing the west wealth all while making China stronger.
With regards to tensions around the border with Russia and Europe, Putin is firmly seen as the aggressor from here, especially after the annexation of Crimea. To us it seems that Russia is testing the water, with the full knowledge that essentially everyone in Europe wants to avoid an outright war.
I assure nobody wants a war here. From here it's seen as USA aggressively trying to push Ukraine to start something stupid like trying to take Crimea back by force. Ukraine is not a sovereign country, it's under external control and they have a very little choice. Their economy is unviable, and I guess US gives them a hard choice: either you go to war with Russia or the flow of credit from the West that allows you to feed your people will stop.
We don't need Ukraine at all. It's useless for us, it's useless for Europe. If we'd captured the Ukraine (and I'm sure that would be easy), we'd have to feed the big population that can't feed themselves and about 50% of that population also hates us to guts. Everybody understands it, including Putin. Why waste resources feeding big ungrateful population if you can offload this problem to Europe?
USSR tried to feed too many hungry mouths: Georgia, Asian republics, Baltic Republics. USSR built infrastructure: schools, hospitals, industry in those countries. They were prosperous during Soviet times because Georgia for example, consumed roughly 10 times or more money its economy generated. The difference was covered by RSFSR (Russia). Only to hear after USSR collapse that we were oppressors. Nobody is going to make this mistake again. Nobody wants to take back Georgia or Tajikistan or Estonia or Lithuania. Let them care about themselves, we better spend our resources to make our life better rather than trying to buy loyalty.
So, I highly doubt Putin have any desire to start a war. It's not beneficial to him or to our country at all. It would be highly beneficial for the US, though.
> Just like the US can stop this war at any moment by dropping support for Ukraine and pressuring them to negotiate.
Just like So you admit Putin could stop the war at any moment ? Good. Why don't you petition for that ? (oh wait, what happened to that guy that submission is about and who wasn't completely on board with Putin's leadership ?)
What prevents him from stopping this war anyway ? Why won't he ? What terrible outcome would he or Russia face if he just declared "okay, we showed the world we ain't no pushovers, we are now confident Ukraine and NATO won't try to invade us because we showed them how strong we are" ?
Anyway, that Putin guy has made it pretty clear he wants to knock off all of Ukraine. Only Russian shills and useful idiots believe otherwise. But that's not what you are, aren't you ?
reply