Neoconservatives are not, and indeed have not held power in the US for the better part of a decade. Indeed not even back when Russia invaded Crimea if memory serves me correctly.
Of course, there's a decent probability that you've redefined "neoconservative" to mean "people whose politics I don't like" as opposed to any definition that's actually useful for an analysis of foreign policy, and concomitantly that you are so myopically focused on one specific component of foreign policy that you would refuse to admit any evidence that might actually prove you wrong.
Talking to people actually living in the place could give you a clue. Putin is a neocon, sure, but no bureaucrat started this war and Ukraine is very unlikely to just fold and submit if the US stop their support. Liberals have also nothing to do with Russian aggression.
This war will likely end with Ukraine losing some amount of land - it is just a matter of if they ever accept this or whether they want a Korea style frozen conflict.
It will not "end" until Russia has installed a subservient client regime in Ukraine like it has in Belorussia.
If you doubt this, I encourage you to look at actual opinions within Russia itself. Interviews with Russians (the 1420 channel on Youtube for example), Russian media, Russian politicians. Their objection is far more than "there's Russian speakers being persecuted by Ukraine." Their national chauvinism leaves them unable to tolerate actually-sovereign nation states on their borders, especially one with an intertwined cultural-linguistic-political history like Ukraine.
"Split Ukraine into two and give the far western half to Poland and absorb the rest into Russia" is a commonly held "solution".
You say it like it’s their choice. Moldova never asked for Transnistria. It’s fairly SOP for Russia to take bites from its neighbours, let’s stop blaming the victims. Whatever Russia ends up doing, they are preparing for themselves a second Chechnya at the very least.
No comment on your politics but saying "Prove me wrong" is basically just saying "Argue with me".
You can rarely prove a prediction or opinion wrong, especially if they're this vague. Only time can, sometimes.
> Prove me wrong.
Neoconservatives are not, and indeed have not held power in the US for the better part of a decade. Indeed not even back when Russia invaded Crimea if memory serves me correctly.
Of course, there's a decent probability that you've redefined "neoconservative" to mean "people whose politics I don't like" as opposed to any definition that's actually useful for an analysis of foreign policy, and concomitantly that you are so myopically focused on one specific component of foreign policy that you would refuse to admit any evidence that might actually prove you wrong.
You are correct, I do not side with warmongers, of which Clinton, Obama, Biden, Bush, Cheney et al are solidly in favor of. War.
You proved nothing.
Talking to people actually living in the place could give you a clue. Putin is a neocon, sure, but no bureaucrat started this war and Ukraine is very unlikely to just fold and submit if the US stop their support. Liberals have also nothing to do with Russian aggression.
>>no bureaucrat started this war
2 bureaucrats that have incessantly called for war quickly come to mind, Jake Sullivan and Victoria Nuland.
What? You haven’t been paying attention. These people had no power to start anything.
Also, last time I checked, it was Russia who invaded, not the US, which are not a party in this war.
This war will likely end with Ukraine losing some amount of land - it is just a matter of if they ever accept this or whether they want a Korea style frozen conflict.
The war will not end there. Just pause.
It will not "end" until Russia has installed a subservient client regime in Ukraine like it has in Belorussia.
If you doubt this, I encourage you to look at actual opinions within Russia itself. Interviews with Russians (the 1420 channel on Youtube for example), Russian media, Russian politicians. Their objection is far more than "there's Russian speakers being persecuted by Ukraine." Their national chauvinism leaves them unable to tolerate actually-sovereign nation states on their borders, especially one with an intertwined cultural-linguistic-political history like Ukraine.
"Split Ukraine into two and give the far western half to Poland and absorb the rest into Russia" is a commonly held "solution".
5 replies →
That happens in 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea. They accepted it and lived on. There is zero safety guarantees for them.
19 replies →
You say it like it’s their choice. Moldova never asked for Transnistria. It’s fairly SOP for Russia to take bites from its neighbours, let’s stop blaming the victims. Whatever Russia ends up doing, they are preparing for themselves a second Chechnya at the very least.
18 replies →
[dead]