You want this (like everything) to be America's fault. There are crocodile tears for all the casualties Ukraine must be suffering at the hands of the Russians (whether that number is as high as you hope or not) but at bottom the Ukrainians just don't matter. What matters is Russia winning. Or maybe whichever side America is backing losing. Hard to tell the difference at this point.
Couldnât agree more with your analysis but do you really think you have a chance at changing the spots of a spoon-fed Russian propagandist? They eat, live, breathe and spread it. Itâs all they know.
Even if "some experts" had a clue what was happening on the battlefield or how military campaigns are actually waged they should ponder some historical lessons.
It's late May of 1940. The last of the allied armies in Europe are withdrawing from France and Norway leaving the continent to Germany and its allies. The Axis powers have all the momentum; Britain alone is still opposing the Nazis.
Only a trickle of military assistance is flowing from America, and even that is controversial. There is a strong isolationist faction in Congress and the American public is suspicious of involving the country with its erstwhile ally, even indirectly. German propaganda is busy denying German atrocities and spreading disinformation about Germany's intentions and a lot of the public (and the news media) is falling for it. The US has not rearmed after the end of WW1 and the country and its industries are not ready for war.
A crisis erupts in the British cabinet as a faction argues for an appeal to Mussolini to broker a peace deal, leaving the British isles neutralized but independent. It looks dire. Which approach do you support? Are you Churchill or Halifax? Further bloodshed and a long, punishing fight against long odds, or surrender?
From your posts to date I'm going to go out on a limb here: you'd be Halifax. Not just because of the fatuous excuses for the war (Germany was provoked! They were surrounded by enemies and needed buffer states! All the criticisms of the German state are off base, it's really a benevolent country that gave us lots of warning! It's all our fault!) but because the side you want to win (the Soviet Union) is at that point allied with Germany.
Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of the USSR) is a year away. Watching the historical timeline it's amusing how quickly the pacifist movement in the US melts away at this point, shifting from squeamish to bloodthirsty, but that's off in the future. For now we have Germany and the USSR carving up eastern Europe together. Only half of this seems like it would bother you.
You keep posting articles expressing the pre-invasion pundit consensus, that enormous Russia with all its men and tanks and nukes and oil and Europe at its mercy for energy has the upper hand, as if that were all that mattered. That was a smokescreen before the full-scale invasion and it's an even thinner one now. To maintain it you have to almost hysterically deny the reality of what's happening on the battlefield and in the capitals of Europe.
But Russia's resource advantage isn't all that matters. Europe remembers its history and knows this isn't the last play in the game. Standing up to imperialist dictators is (beyond being the right thing to do) in their long-term interestsâeven if they lose this round. The most active supporters of Ukraine are the former Russian vassal states that don't want to go back under that boot. Poland is arming itself at a staggering clip; it may be the strongest military power in eastern Europe in a few years. It wants to be if Ukraine keeps Russia at bay; if Ukraine fails it needs to be.
You want this (like everything) to be America's fault. There are crocodile tears for all the casualties Ukraine must be suffering at the hands of the Russians (whether that number is as high as you hope or not) but at bottom the Ukrainians just don't matter. What matters is Russia winning. Or maybe whichever side America is backing losing. Hard to tell the difference at this point.
When you rely on mainstream news media for your news on a war with a highly motivated David slowly grinding down a weaker than expected and stupid Goliath.
You're on TweeterX, R_P, so why not follow some credible sources there for a more balanced picture?
When you rely on mainstream news media for your news on a war with a highly motivated David slowly grinding down a weaker than expected and stupid Goliath.
You're on TweeterX, R_P, so why not follow some credible sources there for a more balanced picture?
There's an interesting suggestion in there about how we get Ukraine to accept a negotiated deal where Russia keeps some large part of its eastern provinces in exchange for a security guarantee. They already got one in 1994, signed by the Russian president, the US president, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It promised that all concerned would protect and respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. Why should they fall for that again?
The proposal outlined would make a nice tidy package for the US to wash its hands of the whole messy conflict and leave Ukraine to its fate. The US could negotiate the surrender of Ukraine, but Ukraine would have to actually surrender. It's not clear to me why that would (or should) happen.
Once upon a time, the USA manufactured cluster bombs and sold them to Israel which deployed them in southern Lebanon. Now Israel manufactures its own cluster bombs. Would be curious to know if Israel exports cluster bombs.
Once upon a time, the USA manufactured cluster bombs and sold them to Israel which deployed them in southern Lebanon. Now Israel manufactures its own cluster bombs. Would be curious to know if Israel exports cluster bombs.
Straw man? Not at all. Although it would be very convenient for you to nullify the general will of Ukrainians to self-determination, which is basically what you are doing and intellectually more than lazy.
Is Ukraine a large country with a diverse population? Of course it is. In fact that is precisely why they do not want Neo-Soviet de facto totalitarian rule.
And that is the very thing that has united the country against the Russian invasion.
Repeating it doesn't make it any truer. At least, for me.
Is German self-determination compatible with being told what energy infrastructure you can or cannot implement? (Rhetorical, no gymnastics required).
