R_P wrote:

I hope you do realise your arguments are circular. By denying agency on the part of the people and positing that they are all just puppets of state machinations (in this case the US), it all just becomes power politics in the sense of Mearsheimer without any underlying moral justification or cause. Why then, blame the US for the very thing Russia is itself guilty of?

 haresfur wrote:
Self-evidently self-serving.

Coup: "The Extent of the Obama Administration’s Meddling in Ukraine’s Politics Was BREATHTAKING"

More or less the same points as a Greenwald video posted earlier.

 R_P wrote:

Ukrainians had nothing to do with that. "Oh, some people in some NATO countries are pissing me off, I think I'll invade a neutral country, then."

Unprovoked. Entirely defensive.

Ha! Respect of sovereignty! Always hilarious coming from some corners.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Seemed pretty obvious to me. World Police (and deputies/posse) continue to lay down "the law" whereas the affected parties (enemies and allies alike) are to appease/cower/comply (no shortage of examples of this hypocrisy in this forum). Often despite what international law might have to say about that. Tariffs, sanctions (primary & secondary), invasions, occupations. You name it. And all with a big cherry on top: zero accountability.

On the other hand, alleged lies by the enemy provide a convenient justification for not ever having to listen to them again. Aside from censorship because dangerous disinformation!

The many events leading up to the invasion are well-documented. Several times in this thread alone going back to pre-2014.

Your side will argue that none of those events can be used as a justification for anything. And that they are never what others claim they are (e.g. a coup or a threat.) The Russians, obviously, view this very differently.

"You're meddling in our sphere of influence!"
"One country does not have the right to exert a sphere of influence. That notion should be relegated to the dustbin of history." (except when it comes to our sphere)
"Uhm, that would be a red line for us!"
"I/We don't accept anybody's red lines" (other than our own)

The irony is that many knowledgeable people predicted provocations would likely lead to a civil conflict in a divided society and possibly an invasion by Russia. ("Hey, let's fuck around and find out!").

By all means, keep lecturing on how things are supposed to work when it's expedient to your (global) self-interest, and going around in circles, as this tragedy continues to play out.

A relevant bit from another "manifesto" (link above):

Selling NATO to Ukraine
Other than Burns—whose Bush-era memos warning of the breadth of Russian opposition to NATO expansion and that it would provoke intensified meddling in Ukraine have become famous since the Russian invasion—U.S. officials largely reacted with dismissal.

Russian objections to the policy and other long-simmering issues were described over and over in the cables as “oft-heard,” “old,” “nothing new,” and “largely predictable,” a “familiar litany” and a “rehashing” that “provided little new substance.” Even NATO’s ally Norway’s position that it understood Russian objections even as it refused to let Moscow veto the alliance’s moves was labeled a case of “parroting Russia’s line.”

U.S. officials were similarly dismissive of explicit warnings—from Kremlin officials, NATO allies, experts and analysts, even Ukrainian leadership—that Ukraine was“internally divided over NATO membership” and that public support for the move was “not fully ripe.” The east-west split within Ukraine over the idea of NATO membership made it “risky,” German officials cautioned, and could “break up the country.” Ukraine’s three leading politicians all “took foreign policy positions based on domestic political considerations, with little regard to the long-term effects on the country,” one said.

Those very politicians likewise made clear public opinion wasn’t there, whether anti-Russian former Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ogryzko of Ukraine, or more Russian-friendly former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych—later misleadingly painted as a Kremlin puppet and was ousted as president in the 2014 Maidan protests—who boasted to a U.S. diplomat that support for NATO had jumped under his tenure. In response, the cables show, NATO officials pressed Ukrainian leaders to take a firm public stance in favor of joining, and discussed how to persuade Ukraine’s population “so that they would be more favorable it.” Ogryzko later disclosed to Merkel “that a public education campaign is already underway,” and that Ukraine “had discussed the issue of public education campaigns with Slovakia and other nations that had joined NATO recently.”

This came in spite of acknowledged risks. Cables record liberal Russian analysts cautioning “that Yushchenko was using NATO membership to shore up a Ukrainian national identity that required casting Russia in the role of enemy,” and that “because membership remained divisive in Ukrainian domestic politics, it created an opening for Russian intervention.”

“Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war,” Burns wrote in February 2008. Russia, he further wrote, would then “have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

Despite the dismissive attitude of many U.S. officials, parts of the U.S. national security establishment clearly understood Russian objections weren’t mere “muscle-flexing.” The Kremlin’s anxieties over a “direct military attack on Russia” were “very real,” and could drive its leaders to make rash, self-defeating decisions, stated a 2019 report from the Pentagon-funded RAND Corporation that explored theoretical strategies for overextending Russia.

Der Wille des Volkes!

 R_P wrote:
Yes, like failing to live up to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (signed by Ukraine, the US, Britain, and Russia) requiring all concerned to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." That agreement was violated (by Russia) with trivial consequences starting in 2014.

Do you dispute that?

Butwhatabout...

Failing to live up to a principle does not invalidate the principle. Or do you disagree with something you're not expressing here? Is there some principle involved here you take issue with?

Your last statement seems rather incoherent. Care to elaborate?

In particular can you point out why anything anyone—the US, Ukraine, Germany, the Vatican, the Duchy of East Fenwicke—did to justify the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the ensuing death and destruction?

 R_P wrote:

Coherent points: In response to Russian pressure, the west did not allow Ukraine to join NATO. Russia built up a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine and then used their military to annex Crimea. Since it was not part of NATO, the west did little to support Ukraine in response. Russia saw this tepid reaction and decided they could invade to take over the whole country. War goes on, people get killed. Russian propaganda and statements from some in the west attempt to portray this as the fault of the US. R_P yet again avoids putting together his position when asked to clarify wtf he actually means with his non-sentences and winky emojis. 

 haresfur wrote:
Still waiting for you to make a coherent point as opposed to simple-minded accusations.

 haresfur wrote: 
Now wait a minute here. That's my school. Dagnabit!

 R_P wrote:
You divert from your inability to put together a defensible position with vague and bombastic diversions. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

THIS ^^^^

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Indeed.  Odessa remains vulnerable until there's a suitable tool available (ATACMS) to neutralize the source of the missiles.  And without close air support (CAS), Ukraine must rely on the bravery of its troops and now recently the availability of cluster munitions.   ATACMS and F-16s in the air would change the dynamic substantially.

https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr...

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Self-congratulations!

 R_P wrote:
I must be getting close to the mark then, if that is all you come up with.

 R_P wrote:
.. not silly at all. Ever since 1990, Russia has been given special treatment by the collective west and especially coddled by Germany. The entire Schroeder / Merkel era was about appeasing Russia, in the vain hope that business ties would keep Russia under control. This was a policy the U.S. only objected to weakly. They could have been a lot more hawkish than they actually were. And even now, the U.S. is not giving Ukraine what it needs to prevail. It appears that is precisely these signs of weakness that embolden Putin.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
There is a non-government version too.

You produce a lot of straw and insinuations. You're not serious.

 R_P wrote:
treason is normally applied in relationship to a state institution. You OTOH ignore the will of the people and champion the state. Strange bedfellows you keep there R_P.

 haresfur wrote:
I think you already answered that. Together with a silly claim.

 R_P wrote:
And who's appeasement of the annexation of Crimea was the initial one. Fuzzy logic R_P.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Treason! Keep going...