Political Posts

[shhughes1116]

17 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

4.......nearly 5 months into this and the "peace deal" on the table in February.......is effectively the off ramp where this conflict ends up in the end.....I havent heard a credible alternative. This is:

 

(1) Ukrainian commitment to neutrality / No NATO membership

(2) Minsk-esque agreement for Eastern Ukraine/contested territories

 

Difference now however is that it's a proxy war between the US & Russia...with all those dynamics......and the US (aligned with the Ukrainian right, not Zelensky) will decide when & what the optics of victory for the US political players 'make sense'.......for an embattled UK Prime Minister Ukraine & Zelensky is a positive PR story he wheels out to try and save his administration, for the embattled US president its one place he can appear Presidential while domestically his presidency falls apart. In the process Ukraine gets increasingly destroyed such that whats left will be husk & millions globally are likely to go hungry due to grain shortages. Its time for a shitload of pragmatism in regards to this situation and a concerted effort at 'peace talks'. Suspect there is no interest in this now until after November. 

Boris?  Boris, is that you tweeting from the troll farm in the Urals?

 

kidding aside, your take on this fails to recognize that Putin isn’t interested in negotiation or peace, and never was.  For him, cease fires and peace deals are a time for Russian military forces to regroup, rearm, and prepare for the next military action.  

Three ways this ends:

1. Ukraine ceases to exist;

2. Russian army defeated in the field.

3. Putin dies.

 

#1 will lead to subsequent invasion of Baltic countries. 
 

#2 will lead to #3.

 

 

 

[cubsfan]

^^^^ We can only hope for 2 & 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

Something between 1) and 2) could very well happen. Nobody wins outright and this goes into a Cold War with flare ups. We should be prepared for the long haul - a conflict that last years with lower intensity.

[CGJB]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:47 AM, changegonnacome said:

4.......nearly 5 months into this and the "peace deal" on the table in February.......is effectively the off ramp where this conflict ends up in the end.....I havent heard a credible alternative. This is:

 

(1) Ukrainian commitment to neutrality / No NATO membership

(2) Minsk-esque agreement for Eastern Ukraine/contested territories

 

Difference now however is that it's a proxy war between the US & Russia...with all those dynamics......and the US (aligned with the Ukrainian right, not Zelensky) will decide when & what the optics of victory for the US political players 'make sense'.......for an embattled UK Prime Minister Ukraine & Zelensky is a positive PR story he wheels out to try and save his administration, for the embattled US president its one place he can appear Presidential while domestically his presidency falls apart. In the process Ukraine gets increasingly destroyed such that whats left will be husk & millions globally are likely to go hungry due to grain shortages. Its time for a shitload of pragmatism in regards to this situation and a concerted effort at 'peace talks'. Suspect there is no interest in this now until after November. 

 

I agree with this take. Well said.

[Castanza]

On 7/7/2022 at 1:17 AM, aws said:

Couldn't possibly disagree more with that cynical take. Ukraine is fighting for their lives and sovereignty against an invader that doesn't acknowledge their right to exist. They aren't fighting to help the democrats win the midterms.

 

Putin has shown his cards, that he thinks he's Peter the Great and will reclaim the former empire. Russia's pretext for the invasion was a lie, and any concessions given to them to stop the fighting just strengthen Russia's position in the future when they will make up some new excuse to expand further.

 

Does any nation truly have a "right" to exist? You either choose to exist and defend it through strength of arms or you get conquered. That is history. 

 

On 7/7/2022 at 7:20 AM, Spekulatius said:

I am with @awshere. If you study even tiny bit of history, you will see that the likely hood of solving this situation with a peace deal coming from a position of weakness is very low.

 

My thinking is that we are at war with Russia and the sooner we acknowledge the fact the better. It’s the Ukrainian that are fighting for us (and themselves ) so we don’t have to. If we supply them with the weapons to make a stand and even push the Russians back, it will be a crushing defeat for Putin.

If not and Ukraine is lost , we better get ready for another fight somewhere else where we don’t have others to fight for us.
There is now a new iron curtain going up in Europe again and elsewhere that will remain in place  and determine geopolitics for a long time - think a decade rather than a year.

 

Why does the US need to take the lead on this? Ukraine is not a NATO country. EU needs to step up...otherwise what's the point of the EU?

 

Anyone concerned with the lack of oversight regarding funding? This is going to get expensive for the US. Ukraine now announcing that 750 Billion is required to rebuild....

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

Does any nation truly have a "right" to exist? You either choose to exist and defend it through strength of arms or you get conquered. That is history. 

 

 

Why does the US need to take the lead on this? Ukraine is not a NATO country. EU needs to step up...otherwise what's the point of the EU?

 

Anyone concerned with the lack of oversight regarding funding? This is going to get expensive for the US. Ukraine now announcing that 750 Billion is required to rebuild....

Ukraine is not part of the EU either. The EU has delivered weapons to the Ukraine as well as monetary aid. They are also taking in millions of refuges - the US does very little on that end.

 

Lots of countries are contributing to the effort - not just the US.

 

The money spent here is well spent, imo.  If Putin wins here (whatever that means) he is going for another adventure and it's going to get more expensive and will cost American lives to stop him.

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

At worse and if for nothing else, Ukraine needs to be supported for no other selfish reasons than bleeding Russia. Like it or not we are at war. 
 

At best, securing a current & future ally against their struggle and doing the right thing. I won’t comment on NATO flip flop which is now history. Water under the bridge. 
 

but I disagree with comments about Putin being made around here. How many of you would have made the same comment about an angry & mad Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon as seen from a Vietnamese point of view, who were being pounded into dust.  
 

so is it really about right and wrong for you, or just a matter of who is the current geopolitical enemy. Happily in 2020 that happens to be Russia, so we are aligned. 
 

but in which direction your personal moral compass would be pointing if we lived in a different age. 

[Castanza]

2 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Ukraine is not part of the EU either. The EU has delivered weapons to the Ukraine as well as monetary aid. They are also taking in millions of refuges - the US does very little on that end.

 

Lots of countries are contributing to the effort - not just the US.

 

The money spent here is well spent, imo.  If Putin wins here (whatever that means) he is going for another adventure and it's going to get more expensive and will cost American lives to stop him.

 

That doesn’t answer the question as to why the US is taking the lead. At the end of all this who do you think will incur the majority of the cost? People have been war weary in the states for well over a decade and have been very critical of military spending. Now all of a sudden that stance goes out the window? The US is pricing itself out future power by constantly expending itself and footing the bill. We have enough problems back home to deal with. When you try to apply morality to geo politics you end up with situations like Vietnam, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO went from being a defensive tool to an offensive regime changing tool and it has failed miserably. NATO is what lead to this entire situation. 
 

If Russia takes Ukraine what changes? I’m skeptical of the view that Russia would push any further. Disregarding their ability to even do so, where would they go and why? 
 

I would rather the US take in the refuges than fork over billions of dollars with zero oversight to a nation with very corrupt politics. 
 

Our current involvement is possibly going to drag us into a land war. Very few militaries including ours is prepared for a land war. Ukraine was one of the largest armies in Europe equipped to fight a land war. While the US and other nations have been perfecting small unit tactics, Russia has been practicing and focusing on large scale land warfare. People are not giving them credit where credit is due. Look at the US in 03. Logistics were a mess and we barely took on an already weak Iraq army. 

From my layman perspective it seems like we are spending a lot of money now and future by prolonging the inevitable. What we’re doing now is simply destroying more infrastructure and ultimately draining resources. 
 

I think negotiation should be top priority 

 

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

That doesn’t answer the question as to why the US is taking the lead. At the end of all this who do you think will incur the majority of the cost? People have been war weary in the states for well over a decade and have been very critical of military spending. Now all of a sudden that stance goes out the window? The US is pricing itself out future power by constantly expending itself and footing the bill. We have enough problems back home to deal with. When you try to apply morality to geo politics you end up with situations like Vietnam, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO went from being a defensive tool to an offensive regime changing tool and it has failed miserably. NATO is what lead to this entire situation. 
 

If Russia takes Ukraine what changes? I’m skeptical of the view that Russia would push any further. Disregarding their ability to even do so, where would they go and why? 
 

I would rather the US take in the refuges than fork over billions of dollars with zero oversight to a nation with very corrupt politics. 
 

Our current involvement is possibly going to drag us into a land war. Very few militaries including ours is prepared for a land war. Ukraine was one of the largest armies in Europe equipped to fight a land war. While the US and other nations have been perfecting small unit tactics, Russia has been practicing and focusing on large scale land warfare. People are not giving them credit where credit is due. Look at the US in 03. Logistics were a mess and we barely took on an already weak Iraq army. 

From my layman perspective it seems like we are spending a lot of money now and future by prolonging the inevitable. What we’re doing now is simply destroying more infrastructure and ultimately draining resources. 
 

I think negotiation should be top priority 

 

If Russia is going to take Ukraine in the end then whose infrastructure is being destroyed?

 

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

If Russia is going to take Ukraine in the end then whose infrastructure is being destroyed?

 

Is there a winner if all the infrastructure is destroyed? There are certainly a lot losers. If Ukraine holds off Russia and Putin runs away with his tail between his legs but all their infrastructure and industry is destroyed are the people there better off? How many will stay? How much will it cost? Who will pay?
 

Why is Ukraine already asking for money to rebuild? The war shows no signs of slowing. 

Record breaking amounts of lobbying for Ukraine; many “pro bono”. 10k contacts made with congress before the war even started . More than the Saudis. Think Tanks, Lawyers, you name it.
 

How is it that Zelensky can claim he is being hunted constantly by spec ops and survived multiple attacks yet somehow the guy doesn’t miss a zoom meeting to ask for money? 

 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23188403/inside-ukraine-foreign-lobbying-blitz-washington-fara-justice

 

There is undoubtedly a shit ton of fraud going on. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” 

 

Paging Dick Cheney 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Castanza

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, Castanza said:

From my layman perspective it seems like we are spending a lot of money now and future by prolonging the inevitable. What we’re doing now is simply destroying more infrastructure and ultimately draining resources. 

 

Exactly right......Star Trek had the prime directive, you know don't interfere on other planets civilizations because your interference can have unintended consequences & not be welcome in the long run.....its a piece of wisdom wrapped up in a space soap opera.

 

Nobody of course can prove me right or wrong on this one.....but if the US & allies hadn't flooded Ukraine with arms sustaining the conflict & their belief they could "beat" the Russians back over their border......this war would already be over & Ukraine would be in better shape than it is today & in the future.......and the crazy thing is the peace deal would look exactly like the deal Zelinsky kite flyed two weeks after the whole thing started > Ukrainian neutrality, Minsk Agreement solution in the East.....Putin would have packed up & left, if you believe like me, that his ultimate aim from the get go and for the last decade really was a neutral Ukraine in a classic military buffer state sense............but I know lots of people in this thread are signed up to the Putin is an expansionist lunatic, hell bent on occupying Ukraine (with 250,000 soldiers  ), recreating the USSR & then marching on to take Poland, Lithuania, East Germany. That idea though is just pure nonsense and a media/politcal invention that doesnt stand up to a second a logic....the easiest of which just requires you to read the CIA's intelligence reports of the number of troops amassed in Russia/Belarus before the conflict began.....an army so large it would struggle to capture & but more importantly hold the State of Wyoming, never mind a country of 70 million people. Some people will believe anything.

Edited July 9, 2022 by changegonnacome

[no_free_lunch]

OK let's examine this logic change vs reality.  So it's impossible for Putin to invade, but yet he surrounded Kiev for a month, he has taken Mariupol and this in spite of the west providing weapons.  How did that happen if .. Putin can't win?   I don't even want to get into the details. From a simple logic perspective, you are saying he couldn't invade Ukraine and yet.. he took huge portions, inspite of our weapons.  Some people will believe anything, yeah I can tell.

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[no_free_lunch]

2 hours ago, Castanza said:

Is there a winner if all the infrastructure is destroyed? There are certainly a lot losers. If Ukraine holds off Russia and Putin runs away with his tail between his legs but all their infrastructure and industry is destroyed are the people there better off? How many will stay? How much will it cost? Who will pay?
 

Why is Ukraine already asking for money to rebuild? The war shows no signs of slowing. 

Record breaking amounts of lobbying for Ukraine; many “pro bono”. 10k contacts made with congress before the war even started . More than the Saudis. Think Tanks, Lawyers, you name it.
 

How is it that Zelensky can claim he is being hunted constantly by spec ops and survived multiple attacks yet somehow the guy doesn’t miss a zoom meeting to ask for money? 

 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23188403/inside-ukraine-foreign-lobbying-blitz-washington-fara-justice

 

There is undoubtedly a shit ton of fraud going on. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” 

 

Paging Dick Cheney 

 

You do not understand what is going on there. This is not a game. Yes, scorched earth is better than slavery and holocaust.  Wake the fuck up and stop making this about yourself.

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[no_free_lunch]

This is what happened the last time Russia ruled Ukraine.  State induced famine that killed millions of people. if you don't want to help, fine fuck off. But do not start with this bullshit about oh they would be better off.  Selfish clowns.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Edited July 9, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Castanza]

9 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

 

You do not understand what is going on there. This is not a game. Yes, scorched earth is better than slavery and holocaust.  Wake the fuck up and stop making this about yourself.

I don’t understand what’s going on there yet you equate it to slavery and the Holocaust…. 

 

Putin has been saying and has said what he was going to do since the 2000’s. He’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. 
 

2008 - Bucharest NATO Summit

- NATO discussed expansion and recognizing Ukraine. Russia explicitly drew a line in the sand and said what they would do and why. 
 

6 years go by and NATO pushed on with their goals. Then you have the 2014 Russian response in Crimea.
 

Another 8 years go by and the west continues to ignore the line drawn in the sand. 

 

 

9 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

This is what happened the last time Russia ruled Ukraine.  State induced famine that killed millions of people. if you don't want to help, fine fuck off. But do not start with this bullshit about oh they would be better off.  Selfish clowns.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The Soviet Union fell a long time ago. 
 

Why are you not pounding the table for the dozen other wars going on around the globe? Don’t call me selfish because you can’t separate your emotion from reality. 

 

Here you go

https://fightforua.org/

Edited July 9, 2022 by Castanza

[changegonnacome]

24 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

From a simple logic perspective, you are saying he couldn't invade Ukraine and yet.. he took huge portions, inspite of our weapons.  Some people will believe anything, yeah I can tell.

 

Dont think you understood what i was saying……i should have been clearer………folks in this thread have Putin as an expansionist hell bent on re-creating the USSR and taking back Ukraine “forever” melding it back into the Russian Federation & in their wild fantasies he marches on to Warsaw & into East Germany………but look at the evidence…….he amassed a small fighting force on the borders of Ukraine in February……a really minuscule amount of forces 190,000 to 250,000 men as per the CIA….……..you can invade and capture a lot of territory with an army like that, on a good day maybe you get all the way to Kyiv if you catch the Ukranian’s flat footed………..but here’s the rub & the key point the expansionists need to grapple with…….…….can you occupy and control even a medium sized city with such a tiny army?Never mind the administrative capital Kyiv + other cities + plus plus plus the rest of Ukraine with that many troops? No you cant. Its mathematically impossible. It would be like trying to buy the Empire State building for a $10,000, I mean you can try but its not gonna work out. I mean somebody please try and explain away this key piece of logic & in no way did he Putin believe somehow the Western Ukranian people would like welcome Russian tanks into Kyiv. That is nonsense. So the expansionist theorists have a problem. The maths dont work.

 

So we have a problem with the expansion theory of what Putin was doing in February unless someone has logical explaintion to the above for me……..was he really planning to take control of the WHOLE of Ukraine and fold it into mother Russia with 250,000 troops? Not even a deluded president advised by spineless generals 6 months out of a Moscow academy would be dumb enough to suggest that and Putin is not a fool. So as I say put the Putin invading, capturing AND occupying Ukraine narrative out of your head the facts dont back it up.

 

So what was his calculation……..my guess…….was he hoped for a super successful blitzergreig to Kyiv, Russian troops walking around the halls of Government buildings of Kyiv in a few days or a couple of weeks, scare the shit out of Zelensky/the West, rely on a flat footed & uncoordinated response from the West……force Zelensky to a neutrality deal quickly, maybe some concession on Donbass…..Ukraine drifting into the arms of NATO would be stopped for a generation……..Putin has made his point to the West that Russian “red lines” are real and also reminded the EU that peace in Europe isnt a given and that the post-world war security architecture of Europe still have relevancy and Russia’s concerns should be respected not least because it has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal.

 

I think he had very limited military aspirations in February but a very large strategic aspiration - stopping the drift of Ukrane into a deepening military alignment with NATO/the West.

 

What happened? Putin underestimated the effectiveness of the Ukranian army & he under estimated how coordinated the response from the West was going to be with sanctions + military aid and how quickly his fight against the Ukranian army became a fight against the Ukranian + unlimited military equipment from the UK/US etc. i.e a good old fashioned proxy war with the US. Where now I’m fairly positive that Zelensky behind closed doors, as he watches every city that matters in Ukraine reduced to rubble, would love to go back to the “peace deal” he offered no more than three weeks into the conflict but he now knows this deal would look too much like a Russian victory that it would be a problem for his US allies & the hardline Ukranian right, which makes it politically unacceptable. So they fight on.

 

Russia’s response to all this…….fine they would have liked the quick neutrality deal I outlined above two weeks after the war started…….but now they know they are in a proxy war…..where politically Putin cant be seen to “lose” either now to the US/NATO/Ukraine in the same way the US/NATO allies cant be seen to lose. His response is really just to demolish Ukraine back to the stone ages. When Russia “takes” a Ukrainian city…you should go look at the victory photos…..its Russian troops beside a completely bombed out government building with everything in frame completley demolished…….they have no intention of staying/occupying or running administratively large swathes of Ukraine (with the exception of the Russian speaking parts in the East)…they just intend to wreck it & achieve through aerial artillery demolition, what they hoped to achieve with a quick “no NATO” peace deal….a militarily neutered Ukraine.

[Spekulatius]

Putin is not going to mess with NATO territory,  I but he will go into other places where he can. target smay be Caucasus, Kazakstan , he is already in Syria, maybe mess with states around the Persian gulf. He wants to resurrect Russia as a superpower. He is also absolutely ruthless, probably the most ruthless leader since Hitler. Zero moral compass.

 

Claiming that Ukraine would be better off his he had conquered it diss not seem to agree with Ukrainian people which I think are probably the people who know best.

 

On the war, if current conditions exist, the Russian will grind it out and win, if you call it that. We probably have to support them in the long haul, rain their troops on western weapons and supply them in sufficient quantity , train their pilots on F-15’s - the whole nine yards.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Spekulatius

[Castanza]

The best take on the situation imo
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-forces/id1205359334?i=1000565338940

[no_free_lunch]

19 hours ago, Castanza said:

I don’t understand what’s going on there yet you equate it to slavery and the Holocaust…. 

 

Putin has been saying and has said what he was going to do since the 2000’s. He’s doing exactly what he said he was going to do. 
 

2008 - Bucharest NATO Summit

- NATO discussed expansion and recognizing Ukraine. Russia explicitly drew a line in the sand and said what they would do and why. 
 

6 years go by and NATO pushed on with their goals. Then you have the 2014 Russian response in Crimea.
 

Another 8 years go by and the west continues to ignore the line drawn in the sand. 

 

 

The Soviet Union fell a long time ago. 
 

Why are you not pounding the table for the dozen other wars going on around the globe? Don’t call me selfish because you can’t separate your emotion from reality. 

 

Here you go

https://fightforua.org/

 

It's the same people as the soviet union, same tactics.  Putin even was former KGB, those guys were in control the whole time back through the 30's and really back to the 1800's under the czar.  There is a long history of disrespect for life over there.

 

This is what happened in Chechnya, 250k dead out of 1.5m people.  That is all under Putin too.

 

Quote

As many as 250,000 civilians were killed in the combined Chechen wars, along with many thousands more combatants on both sides. Reports of rape, arson, torture, and other crimes by Russian soldiers were widespread — and cast as a wholly necessary evil by those forces. "Without bespredel [no limits warfare], we'll get nowhere in Chechnya," a 21-year-old Russian conscript told the Los Angeles Times in 2000. "We have to be cruel to them. Otherwise, we'll achieve nothing."

 

https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010764/putins-brutal-record-in-chechnya-and-syria-is-ominous-for-ukraine

 

You are also ignoring what even mainstream russia media is saying they will do. They talk about Ukrainian's as less than human and needing to be purged.  Same shit that Hitler used to say.

 

The reason I push this is it's right on Europe's doorstep and Ukraine will not hate on us for helping them.  I would want to help all these countries with their problems but they don't want us in, their own people will attack us.  It's not like that here.   

 

I think this selfishness we are seeing will come back on you all.  Guys like Putin and Xi can see the fear and if we flinch then it just emboldens them.  Right now Russia is contained and can't take the west in a fight but if we let them gain territories the calculation starts to change.  There was a time where we had nothing to fear from China either, now they are a peer to the US, probably could have been prevented or slowed down but we handed it to them.

Edited July 10, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Folks. We are all on “team humanity”. Let’s be civil. 
 

That said, from a historical perspective the notion that, Ukraine was some far flung colony of Kremlin and its evil empire, is wrong and yet another western fantasy. 
 

It is correct to say that today Ukrainian people (majority I think) have made a choice and that is to be European and that is what self determination means. But to create a fictional narrative from the Soviet era, with Kiev under Russian jackboot is highly misleading. 
 

Soviet Union was an institution and its two towering pillars were Moscow and Kiev. The latter not only made technological, political and military contribution it was at the very heart of that empire. You had Ukrainian generals, marshals of the Soviet Union, scientists, secretary generals, prime minister, technocrats all contributing to the Soviet Union and its mission. Never mind it’s vast farmlands and industrial base.  

 

This was not at ALL like the British sovereignty of the India, where there was a master-slave relationship. (Of course, Western perspective: we civilized the Indians)
 

Now someone is going to point to the war in the 1920s, so what!!  millions of Russians died during the rule of the Georgian-born non-Russian Joseph Stalin. Trotsky was Ukrainian ! Felix Derzhensky, founder of Cheka and grandfather of KGB was polish background (not Russian). A hero of the war, marshal Rokosovsky was Polish. marshal Timoshinko was Ukrainian (a Soviet Heinz Guderian figure who met his fate during the Red Terror). Of the 3 admiral of the fleet, the Soviet Union had, 1 was Armenian, 1 was of Serbian background and 1 was of Russian background. The company  Mikoyan (Migs) was founded by an Armenian whose brother held position in Stalin’ court. Etc. 

 

support Ukraine for the right reasons. 

But stick to facts. Not fiction and what is convenient to spew at the time.

 

And I said earlier, I very much hope next time there is a genocide elsewhere involving non-whites (don’t look too far we had one in Burma in 2018), and in a not so geopolitical relevant location, you will support those cause with the same fire and passion and get all “Churchillian”. I hope your moral compass does not have an “aeroplane mode”. 
 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

There was a famine in the 30's, intentionally created by the Russian government that killed millions of people Xerxes.  It was designed to purge out resistance from the rural class.  That is not fear mongering that is fact.  Most countries consider it a genocide.

[Xerxes]

52 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

There was a famine in the 30's, intentionally created by the Russian government that killed millions of people Xerxes.  It was designed to purge out resistance from the rural class.  That is not fear mongering that is fact.  Most countries consider it a genocide

 

You seem to know more than me about that episode in the first few decades of the USSR. All I know is that millions died of famine and purges etc. So thanks for the clarification. Not that it changes anything for the victims (Ukrainian, Russian or otherwise).   

 

Admitingly I also know very little of U.S. campaign against the native Indian as that the United States was being build up as a nation. 
 

Is that called genocide as well ?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

It likely was, certain periods for sure.  However it isn't happening now in the US.  It seems everyone wants to go into the US, they are not running from them.

 

None of that changes the fact that there was a genocide and it is sure relevant when we are discussing whether the Ukrainians would be better off laying down arms.  Could you imagine if Germany was somehow invading Israel, telling them that it's actually better to just get it over with.  Yeah right!  It might explain some of the resistance too, if you understood the blood history.  It's not just a territorial war, it's a fight to exterminate.  Not to kill all Ukrainians but the upper class and anyone who would resist.

Edited July 10, 2022 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Ok. Agreed. That is fair in the context of your point (which is about what is happening now)

 

my point was that Ukraine was to the Soviet empire what Scotland was to the British empire. A willing participant of its imperial expansion, a major contributor of its industrial war machine, politicians, marshals, generals etc. if there was no Ukraine there would be no Soviet empire as a super power. notwithstanding the early days ….

 

this goes in our “agree but on different points” bucket. 

[Dinar]

2 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

It likely was, certain periods for sure.  However it isn't happening now in the US.  It seems everyone wants to go into the US, they are not running from them.

 

None of that changes the fact that there was a genocide and it is sure relevant when we are discussing whether the Ukrainians would be better off laying down arms.  Could you imagine if Germany was somehow invading Israel, telling them that it's actually better to just get it over with.  Yeah right!  It might explain some of the resistance too, if you understood the blood history.  It's not just a territorial war, it's a fight to exterminate.  Not to kill all Ukrainians but the upper class and anyone who would resist.

It was a Communist organized famine, not Russian organized famine, there is a difference.