At no time, Archer, have you ever offered a coherent explanation of what the west should have done here. And that's because the alternative -- that everyone simply sit back and watch as Russia commits genocide on a scale unseen since WWII, something it began to effect from the day it advanced into Ukraine -- is so horrific that you aren't about the suggest it. Instead, you offer a bunch of vague pox-on-both-your-houses pap without fundamentally addressing the reality that this war was going to happen whether or not the west involved itself.
I have never suggested everyone “sit back and watch”. And I’m not claiming to have the solution; I’m just somewhat reluctant to accept that stirring up war fever in the west is a particularly constructive response to yet another war on yet another continent.
The west shouldn't have sat back and watched. It just shouldn't have provided military assistance to Ukraine. Which is the same thing, ultimately, with the sole difference being that one can convince themselves that they aren't at least partially complicit in allowing the ensuing genocide to occur, even though they absolutely would be.
So anyone who is reluctant to jump on the militaristic band wagon is complicit in genocide now? So does that make every enthusiast for yet another US military adventure, complicit in the murder of civilians from Afghanistan to Aleppo?
I agree - for those of you that haven't, watch 'once upon a time in Iraq'. Actual experiences from those there and Iraqis. Spoiler: Spoiler We should have left alone. Saddam was the madman that was the glue to relative stability in the area
What makes this a 'US military adventure'? Most of the diplomatic efforts in this war have involved Europe pressing the US to provide more assistance, and not the reverse. And yes: if you have the ability to stop atrocities and you do not, then you are complicit in their commission. That certainly doesn't mean that you should intervene in every situation, or even most situations; intervention might mean even greater harm. The plight of Iraqis under Saddam was horrific; the plight of Iraqis during and following the Iraq War was worse. I see absolutely no indication that is the case here however. The people bearing the burden of this fight are the Ukrainians, and support for continuing to fight is extraordinarily high in Ukraine, because they know the consequence of not doing so.
Successive American administrations love to talk in terms of the power their military, military intervention and that good old American favourite.....Justice. It's actually sickening to watch the war mongers threaten country after country with their superior 'military'. Those days are coming to a close, and with ordinary citizens in the West recognising that all wars end in a negotiated settlement, why not start there? How about giving dialogue a try? We need more people such as Clare Daly to call out the war mongers for what they are.
Genuine question that nobody on here has ever answered. Nobody. Not once. I've asked a dozen times and all I get is prevarication, avoidance and lectures about Northern Ireland and the Versailles Treaty. Once the Russians were over the border for the second time in six years and rolling tanks toward Kyiv with the stated intention of removing the Ukrainian government, what should Ukraine have done? Should they have negotiated? Vin
Exactly. It's hard to pin this on American adventurism (a thing that is bad!) when America i) didn't start the war, and ii) America and the UK were the primary parties outside of Ukraine working to prevent it. The US, and the UK, have embarked on a lot of idiotic and destructive military excursions. This isn't that. According to the International Criminal Court, Russia's attempts to systematically ethnically cleanse Ukraine began within four days of Russia's invasion. Ukraine wanted weapons because they did not want to be the victims of genocide, and as horrible as this extended war has been and will continue to be, the "peace" of letting Ukraine be dismantled almost assuredly would have been worse. Turning it into a narrative about American military overreach is just completely farcical.
The question you should be asking, which pre-date the Russion incursions into Ukraine, is why has Russia entered/invaded Ukraine? You then need to go look at the true facts, not just the western mainstream media version of events, but the true events. Why did Ukraine continually shell people in the Donbas region after they wanted and later voted to be a part of the Russian Federation. You will only find the lopsided and Americanised version of that story in the mainstream media because we continually maintain the lie that 'Russia is Evil' and there is only one side to any story, and that is the Western version. https://www.donbass-insider.com/202...-for-integration-into-the-russian-federation/ What was Ukraine supposed to do when Russia entered their country. That's pretty obvious but just to save you thinking about it, they had two options. Negotiate a ceasefire with Russia and an eventual peace deal, or fight. They chose to fight because the western powers assured them of unlimited military support, which is something the West has no hope of ever delivering. The collective West can not supply Ukraine enough shells, rockets, tanks and aircraft to win a conflict with Russia and the Americans know it. If you don't believe me then just read how the narative is now changing from "Ukraine will triumph with the unwavering support of America and its allies", to one of muted acceptance that things ain't going so well. Russia has made numerous overtures to the West over the years but as always, the Americans know better and it never goes anywhere. America is fighting a proxy war against Russia and when it suits them, or when they get tired of pumping billions of $'s into something they have no hope of winning, they will leave Ukraine up the creek, and knowing them, sell them a bent paddle. America only unleashes its precious military on small countries that have no hope of withstanding them. Vietnam, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. A pretty impressive list of major powers the Americans have taken on, and that doesn't touch on the bombing and drone strikes all over the world, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the name of 'Justice'. None of the above is about justice or any sense of fairness, it's all about America holding on to and increasing its power, feeding the war machine which keeps the money rolling in through mass arms sales, and maintaining American hegemony. America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, it wants war because it mistakenly believes it will critically weaken Russia. Negotiating, talking and finding joint visions backed up by solid agreements are the things that bring human progress and better lives for all. Imperialism, military power do nothing but create fear and loathing.
Again no answer. Just an assertion that I'm asking the wrong question. Amazing how many people seem unable to express their opinion of what Ukraine should have done after the Russians invaded. I suspect it's all an abstract game for you. Don't take it personally; I wasn't expecting an answer to the question I actually asked. Vin
Okay, now you're just going full tankie. No one even bothers pretending that the votes in the annexation referendum were fair. And some other headlines from Donbass Insider, which is definitely a trustworthy source for news we should be treating as superior to the western media: "Arrest of US journalist for spying in Russia demonstrates Western hypocrisy" "SMP Wagner is the rock against which the FAU’s elite units break their teeth" "Macron dishonors France by giving the Legion of Honor to Zelensky" Here's some of their quality journalism: https://www.donbass-insider.com/202...y-operation-in-ukraine-a-year-of-revelations/ It's a Russian disinfo and propaganda site, and has been recognized as such for some time. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/24/russia-ukraine-attack-social-media-telegram/
There was a company in Ukraine where they were manufacturing arms and selling them to Russia - apparently this has been stopped and them prosecuted, but wtf. I still dont understand how there is so much trade going on between the 2 countries with continued deliveries from Ru to Ukr. And the people I know in Ukraine barely even feel there is a war going on, their lives, whilst not normal, are certainly not like some areas that have been flattened, in fact, most of Ukr is pretty much feeling this. Not that this is in your western press.
Do you just ignore what people write or scan read stuff and smile because you can't see anything there? Here's what I wrote - "What was Ukraine supposed to do when Russia entered their country. That's pretty obvious but just to save you thinking about it, they had two options. Negotiate a ceasefire with Russia and an eventual peace deal, or fight. They chose to fight because the western powers assured them of unlimited military support, which is something the West has no hope of ever delivering."
It’s a meaningless question. I am not Ukrainian and cannot answer for that country; and neither are you. The pertinent question in this situation is, what should the U.K. do? Given that we cannot seemingly afford to fund our own schools and hospitals, nor give any of our public servants a payrise, yet never seem to have any problem sending weapons to a war zone, the question is one I really think our own politicians need to answer. As for war being an abstract game, I’d suggest that cheering on Ukraine’s army from 2000 kilometres away is a pretty abstract involvement in the act of war.
That was just a simple restatement of the question along with an explanation of your opinion why you think Ukraine did what they did. I asked you what they should have done in your opinion once the column of tanks was heading for Kyiv. And you didn't answer. Who's scanning now? Vin
I’m not sure how you negotiate a sensible peace with a country that doesn’t believe you should exist? Did you read Medvedev’s tweet? And Putin has been saying it for ages, and from before the invasion.
Are you on a wind up or do you not understand the written word.... In answer to your question, here is it again... ".....they had two options. Negotiate a ceasefire with Russia and an eventual peace deal, or fight" Do you want me to expain in minute detail how they should negotiate? Or how they should attack each Russian tank? If you do then you are out of luck because I don't know the answers to such pointless questions. America and the UK in pumping weapons and munitions into Ukraine has undoubtedly resulted in a far greater number of casualties on both sides, which is a terrible thing. The people who send the weapons to areas of conflict never experience the results of their actions, but if it was them and their families suffering you can be sure they wouldn't do it.
"Negotiate a ceasefire with Russia and an eventual peace deal" You really believe that is, or was from the start of the invasion, a realistic option after Russian expansion into Chechnya and Crimea with Putin deigning Ukraine's right to exist?
You're becoming very personal and moderately aggressive here and I don't know why. I asked what they should do in a situation where the options were, effectively, negotiate or fight. Your answer was "negotiate or fight". Forgive me but that doesn't really sound helpful. I appreciate that you think I'm stupid because I disagree with you but frankly I'm just very bored of people dodging the question. Whether you like it or not, you appear to be doing the same. You clearly don't want to answer so, in the interests of not angering you any more, I'll disengage. Vin
