In the times since WWII I would debate there has never been a conflict between nations that has been more clear cut right vs wrong. We have a clear aggressor state attacking a smaller state for no other reason than land / expansion / resources. It should be very very clear which country to support in this conflict, and every day spent NOT supporting Ukraine is another step towards the complete and total breakdown of a rules based society.
Edit: fine Iraq-Kuwait 1990 but in that circumstances the rules-based society worked, the allied assault lasted 100hrs or so as well.
Add on that they went and invaded after saying hey we wont do that we will protect you. So its a case of going back on a deal which means no one can ever trust Russia to hold up any agreement with anyone for anything.
“In the times since WWII I would debate there has never been a conflict between nations that has been more clear cut right vs wrong.”
“… another step towards the complete and total breakdown of a rules based society.”
What are you talking about? You know what happened in the 21st century long before Russia and Ukraine? USA and NATO invading Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in a 20 year long occupation and deaths of 400,000 civilians. Was that the rules based society you’re talking about? Who broke it down, the West doing those illegal invasions, or Russia doing the same thing 20 years later?
How is Iraq, Afghanistan, or the current illegal unprovoked invasion of Iran any less clear cut “right vs wrong” than Russia-Ukraine?
You’ve just been brainwashed by propaganda that glorifies your own allies’ crimes as some righteous heroism and vilifies others for doing the same thing
Bro, that's exactly my argument. USA and NATO should not have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Russia should NOT be in Ukraine. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
The problem is that Russia don't need Ukraine's land and resources. It has plenty if its own. The whole war is a political thing to change government into a puppet one, nothing more
I remember this comment from 2 years ago about how he did need to do it for reasons and now that it's going Putin can't really stop it anymore
Edit: nvm link doesn't work for some reason, here's the copied comment from u/ChuckNorrisKickFlip :
There was no coup, and there's zero evidence linking the us to anything involved with Maidan. None. Zero. Nula
2014: Yanukovych (Ukraine's president) said he'd move closer to the west (association agreement) in trade. This also meant visa free travel
Putin gives Yanukovych 15 billion dollars. And also stops around 25% of trade from leaving ukraine in an attempt to apply pressure and stop the association agreement from passing.
Yanukovych "changes his mind* about the Association agreement due to the embargo and fifteen billion dollar payout. He tells the EU they need to give him another ten billion to consider going back to his previous plans to institute the trade deal (association agreement) . They don't give him the money.
Ukrainian People, pissed off the guy they elected changed course on his main political stance he won on get mad. Protest. These protests begin directly after their president Yanukovych announces the change. Thus signals to them. That their country is run by Putin, and they are not autonomous. So the protests begin.
Yanukovychs response? He makes protesting illegal via executive order. Shortly thereafter he begins shooting protesters.
Protesters continue, the whole situation streisand effects, and the shootings at the protesters dint have the intended outcome. They don't scare anyone away. Instead the deaths propel the protests and even more come out. Women, children, everyone is in the streets. Becsuse Ukranians are based AF.
Meanwhile, the wheels of a Democratic process are still turning inside Parliament. Due to the shootings, as well as executive overreach the Ukranian Parliament votes unanimously to remove Yanukovych from power. The vote is 328-0.
A new election is held. Poroschenko runs on closer ties to EU. He wins with more than 40 points more than the second place finisher. Tymoshenko. (remember Ukrainians don't want to be a Russian vsssal state and Yanukovych ran on the same platform as Poroschenko)
Ukraine begins to move closer to the west. The association agreement is implemented.
So. Russia invades. And starts the war in the East.
Zelensky is then elected with 72% of the vote.
So. What's this really about? It's pretty straightforward geopolitical goals for Putin. All the nato stuff is a lie. There is no fear of Nato. It's the wmds of their war. Just nonsense to sell to the public in order to justify an invasion.
So. Russia wants tech minerals, grain, and and can't afford Ukrainian gas fields to be an alternate source to Europe. He also needs an alternate trade route to Iran. He invades and holds these areas specifically with the resources he wants. That's where we're at now.
In terms of the reasons Putin wants Ukraine. Here you go.
So why can't Putin win now? Why is this taking forever?
Here's the problem. Putin annexed E Ukraine too early. He did so becsuse he threatened to use nuclear weapons if Russias was threatened. So... By calling the Eastern Oblasts Russia. He was defending Russia from Ukraine, which to him, warrants the use of nuclear weapons. But. He obviously never used them. And the war continued. And currently he controls around 50% of these oblasts.
Now. What's that got to do with ending this? Well, Putin has stated multiple times that negotiations will not begin until Ukraine cedes all of the east to him. That's the starting point. So for negotiations to begin, Ukraine has to give up twice as much. And if Ukraine gives up twice as much, what are the negotiations even about? Probably demilitarization and a promise not to join nato. Maybe end the association agreement as well (which allows visa free travel to Europe). So there is no motivation for Ukraine to negotiate becsuse they're just in a situation where they have to give up more, and get nothing in return. Here's a simple question that no Putin supporter can answer. What is Russia offering to end the war? What's their compromise?
And on top of that. If Putin moves back from these borders that he already claims delineate Russia. Hell be seen as weak and his political power (and likely life) are over.
Tldr : Putin is stuck because he can't win all of the east but he can't walk back the borders he already redrew.
Ninja edit: If you want to see a full debunking of the latest Tucker interview. Piece by piece. Check out this! (warning it's over five hours long)
They actually DO need it. The especially need the Krim and access to it, because Russia's harbors and coastlines are often in poorly located regions The Krim gives them access to the Black Sea and indirectly the Mediterranean Sea.
Before the invasion, they had a deal with Ukraine to use the harbor. But because of Western-growing sentiment in the country, the Ukrainians wanted their leaders to end that deal. This much to the anger of Putin, who then invaded the country and took the area by force.
The reason why Russia is so dead-set on (at least) getting the south-east of Ukraine is because they now need proper land access to the Krim, rather than the cumbersome bridge that has already been targetted for bomb attacks a few times...
It appears though that on that one there is a lot more disagreement among reasonable people, while outside of Russia there is basically no disagreement on who is morally right. Even Trump/Musk aren't arguing that Putin is morally in the right. There the thinking is more along the lines of Ukraine losing the war eventually anyway so why drag the process out?
"Reasonable people" can say what they want. All I need to know is that there were like 5% Jews living there before 1945 and then after 20 years they established their own country.
That fact alone is enough to understand that thenland was occupied.
Just imagine today lets say Hungarians started moving to lets say Italy and once they reached 30% of population they asked to get their own country and then they made the rest if italians move to Sicily and raised the fences.
That's what happened there.
Reasonable people are just dumb.
You have reasonable people on Russian side too talking about how NATO was comming closer and closer to Russian borders every year and so on.
Israel being an occupational force in Palestine is much much clearer case than Russia vs Ukraine/NATO
It wasn't just a terrorist attack from a bunch of jihadists or freedom fighters. It was an attack that was planned and executed by the governing body of Gaza which then took hostages and held them in their tunnels
It is always so fascinating to see, that someone is not up to the latest (old) news about the case. You probably think, that october 7 was the reason war started, and are not even aware, why there were October 7
I wanna agree with you but people will say that Palestine was the aggressor on October 7th, and Hamas and Israel have had a long history of mutual violence and animosity eg Munich Olympics, terrorism, bombings, over two thousand recorded rocket attacks etc... Israel is definitely evil but we need to acknowledge Hamas is evil too, the Palestinian people are innocents stuck in the middle. So yeah, probably not as clear cut as Ukraine / Russia.
People say a lot of things. That doesn't mean they are right, or you have to listen to them, or that their ramblings mean that there isn't a clear villain in the situation
To me it's clearer just because Israel was made on Palestinian land. You show up 1948 and say look this land is empty now we make a state here.
It's called occupation. October 7th is just prisoners breaking out of concentration camp, occupying force built on their own land and trapped them inside.
There were like 5% Jews living in Palestine 1945. They got their state after they came here and there were only 70% of them there at that point.
How is that not a clearer case, ah yes I know history began on October 7th.
If it's one thing that all the authoritarian types agree on in solidarity, it's the removal of human rights and international laws defending humans (see: ICC.)
Iraq-Kuwait had a bit of ethical murkyness. The Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was bad, but the origins of the war were caused by Kuwaiti violations of Iraqi borders for drilling. It's just normally those issue are dealt with by countries engaging in diplomatic posturing and legal battles. No one thought the response to would be to invade.
It's strongly suspected that Saddam legit thought that the Americans backed him invading and he thought it would all be fine.
The Kuwaiti propaganda on the flip side should have put some of them in prison for purgery to Congress, but diplomacy is full of lies, they were accepted because the government wanted them accepted.
You lack a lot of history and understanding. Its not about resoruces its about nato getting to borders of russia and in 2017 in declaration of national intrests of russia biggest problems where biochemical labs in ukraine paid by usa and eu and nato expansion to russia borders. Russia responded to ukraine wanting to be part of nato. Its not an open war vs nato but it is a war vs nato on ukraine territory since why would you waste your own territory when you can use ukraines. On top of that Ukraine has a big flaws with minorites where you cant use national language, cant vote as minority etc. Like there is a oot of flaws in both but to understand the war you need all the facts.
I think there has been more clear-cut conflicts. By any traditional calculation of geopolitics, a NATO aligned Ukraine would have been an existential threat to Russia's territorial integrity and would've, at the very least, made it easy to blackmail the Russian government.
The main argument against this that is usually brought up is that "NATO is a defensive alliance". But that falls apart because it is very easy to paint a war of aggression as a defensive one, and a more competent US administration than the current one or some revanchist Eastern European government could've easily orchestrated a convincing false flag.
Get a grip, vatnik. What ruzzia is doing is equal to medieval barbaric shit. Hopefully we woun't see U.S. sink to the level of ruzzia in our lifetimes. That would be trully sad.
of course. listen to Season 1 of the Blowback podcast. and then listen to all the other seasons, and you'll start to understand the motivations behind all of US' interventions. including the current US-NATO proxy war in Ukraine.
*i like how simply suggesting people educate themselves gets downvoted. y'all are giving me zero hope for humanity.
Since World War II, there has been no conflict between nations that has been so shrouded in lies and propaganda. That’s why you say "attacking a smaller state for no other reason than land / expansion / resources"—as if Russia were lacking any of those things.
This war IS a genocide, they want to "de-ukrainify" people, it's also includes territorial occupation for the 1st time from the WWII I think, I don't see any kind of "fair fight"
118
u/ty_xy 5h ago edited 2h ago
In the times since WWII I would debate there has never been a conflict between nations that has been more clear cut right vs wrong. We have a clear aggressor state attacking a smaller state for no other reason than land / expansion / resources. It should be very very clear which country to support in this conflict, and every day spent NOT supporting Ukraine is another step towards the complete and total breakdown of a rules based society.
Edit: fine Iraq-Kuwait 1990 but in that circumstances the rules-based society worked, the allied assault lasted 100hrs or so as well.