Comment by kergonath
2 years ago
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".
Those same people on 1420 will tell you that Poland and UK need to be denazified. It's just propaganda working, you can't mistake it for real strategic goals.
4 replies →
That happens in 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea. They accepted it and lived on. There is zero safety guarantees for them.
Ukraine has been fighting Russia for nearly a decade, with active if low-level warfare in the Donbass region the entire time. I wouldn't exactly call that "accept[ing] it and liv[ing] on."
2 replies →
Not quite! The immediate history here plays a huge role in where we're at today. In the 2014 the US backed a [coup, revolution, insurrection - whatever you want to call it] in Ukraine that saw their democratically elected pro-Russian President overthrown. Numerous Ukrainian territories that also leaned pro-Russia refused to recognize the new government and declared their independence, the Donbas region and Crimea among them.
For the 8 years from 2014 to 2022 Ukraine was intermittently attacking and shelling these breakaway territories (excepting Crimea, which had become part of Russia) which were (and are) largely populated with ethnic Russians, and Russia was "secretly" protecting them. This led to a series of treaties, The Minsk Accords [1], to try to arrange peace between Russia and Ukraine, and give the breakaway territories some sort of special status while remaining under Ukraine.
These treaties were always violated. And while this was happening Ukraine was increasingly fortifying and arming itself, as well as seeking to join NATO - which NATO was, sincerely or not, indulging. This all really set the stage for where we are today. It also sets the stage for where we're going tomorrow, because the inability to maintain any sort of a peace over these regions is going to make obtaining a 'minimally unfavorable' settlement for Ukraine, over this war, much more difficult.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
15 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.
Of course it is not just their choice. Russia has indicated their willingness to accept current holdings (for now, you are right there are no guarantees).
Ukraine could and should get better than just that, but this notion of taking back Crimea is a pipe dream and I don’t support continued funding until that goal is realized.
17 replies →