… Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.
What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West’s decision?
Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.
The West chose to make the “fight for your survival” play look more viable. If other countries send enough tanks/planes/missiles, perhaps Russia can be pushed back in a matter of a few months without huge loss of territory.
Conversely, if Ukraine was left to their own military and financial resources-- no sanctions to hamstring Russia, no sweetheart deals on equipment-- they could spend a few weeks burning through what they had, and then perhaps degrading to a years-long insurgency situation akin to Afghanistan. The best story you can sell is “We’re going to have years of violence and misery, and if we’re really lucky, our occupiers will decide we’re too much hassle and expense and leave on their own accord.” With that alternative, maybe a brokered deal would look more compelling.
… so your argument is that, hopefully, and this is an insane hope, that if Ukraine was unable to resist militarily at the outset of the invasion, that they MIGHT decide a protracted war was more trouble than survival was worth, and submit to a negotiated genocide?
I don’t know why point is he even making. He’s looking like a total evil jackass and has only proven that either he loves to troll, is actually trying to make tankies look like homicidal maniacs (they don’t need any help) or is actually evil lol!
It seems like we always slippery-sloped this conflict from the beginning. If Russia is given a square millimetre of land, then they’ll demand all of Ukraine, Poland, and for good measure, North Carolina, and of course kill everyone there.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective.
Putin has a need to posture and project power. Most autocrats do, and especially in a country that’s otherwise stagnant. Russia can hardly point to a robust economy or major international stage presence in the last few decades, and the continuing encroachment of institutions like NATO and the EU in his backyard just make them look even more impotent and irrelevant.
That’s why the Donbass was such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective: it lets him say “We’re important! We’re powerful! We still have a sphere of influence!”, and wrap it in an appealing (to a domestic audience) story of “We’re reuniting a community of fellow Russophones, who have been repressed by a country that didn’t get the memo that slapping the Black Sun on every surface isn’t the best PR choice ever”. It promised a cheap win that 's full of the exact symbolism he’s after.
From that perspective, it might have spiraled into a “we have to conquer/control all of Ukraine” situation because anything but a full formal surrender will be a military and political hairball to enforce. But does they even want that? It’s way more difficult and expensive, and presents a much less compelling story to rally the public behind; you have to really try to force the “de-Nazification” angle to try to make it remotely look palatable.
If we reconceptualize the situation as “what’s the cheapest way to let Putin walk away with the win he actually craves”, that might have been simply putting on a big stage act and saying “uwu you’re so big and strong, we can’t possibly stand up to your mighty military, here’s a token concession, please let us live, and can we have a treaty of mutual friendship because we like you so much more than those weak EU people?” He gets the street cred he craves at home, and overall bloodshed is minimized. Yes, it’s still incentivizing a bully to be a bully, but generally people prefer that to being dead.
… Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.
What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West’s decision?
Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.
The West chose to make the “fight for your survival” play look more viable. If other countries send enough tanks/planes/missiles, perhaps Russia can be pushed back in a matter of a few months without huge loss of territory.
Conversely, if Ukraine was left to their own military and financial resources-- no sanctions to hamstring Russia, no sweetheart deals on equipment-- they could spend a few weeks burning through what they had, and then perhaps degrading to a years-long insurgency situation akin to Afghanistan. The best story you can sell is “We’re going to have years of violence and misery, and if we’re really lucky, our occupiers will decide we’re too much hassle and expense and leave on their own accord.” With that alternative, maybe a brokered deal would look more compelling.
… so your argument is that, hopefully, and this is an insane hope, that if Ukraine was unable to resist militarily at the outset of the invasion, that they MIGHT decide a protracted war was more trouble than survival was worth, and submit to a negotiated genocide?
Go fuck yourself.
I don’t know why point is he even making. He’s looking like a total evil jackass and has only proven that either he loves to troll, is actually trying to make tankies look like homicidal maniacs (they don’t need any help) or is actually evil lol!
It seems like we always slippery-sloped this conflict from the beginning. If Russia is given a square millimetre of land, then they’ll demand all of Ukraine, Poland, and for good measure, North Carolina, and of course kill everyone there.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective.
Putin has a need to posture and project power. Most autocrats do, and especially in a country that’s otherwise stagnant. Russia can hardly point to a robust economy or major international stage presence in the last few decades, and the continuing encroachment of institutions like NATO and the EU in his backyard just make them look even more impotent and irrelevant.
That’s why the Donbass was such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective: it lets him say “We’re important! We’re powerful! We still have a sphere of influence!”, and wrap it in an appealing (to a domestic audience) story of “We’re reuniting a community of fellow Russophones, who have been repressed by a country that didn’t get the memo that slapping the Black Sun on every surface isn’t the best PR choice ever”. It promised a cheap win that 's full of the exact symbolism he’s after.
From that perspective, it might have spiraled into a “we have to conquer/control all of Ukraine” situation because anything but a full formal surrender will be a military and political hairball to enforce. But does they even want that? It’s way more difficult and expensive, and presents a much less compelling story to rally the public behind; you have to really try to force the “de-Nazification” angle to try to make it remotely look palatable.
If we reconceptualize the situation as “what’s the cheapest way to let Putin walk away with the win he actually craves”, that might have been simply putting on a big stage act and saying “uwu you’re so big and strong, we can’t possibly stand up to your mighty military, here’s a token concession, please let us live, and can we have a treaty of mutual friendship because we like you so much more than those weak EU people?” He gets the street cred he craves at home, and overall bloodshed is minimized. Yes, it’s still incentivizing a bully to be a bully, but generally people prefer that to being dead.
“That’s why Jews were such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective.”
You’te not wrong, from a genocidal maniac perspective.
So you reckon appeasement works when dealing with expansionist right wing governments?
Lol, I always wondered how the world ignored Hitler. This guy illustrates it well
Brokered peace deal would mean more torture chambers and child trafficking.