People in this thread clearly don’t understand what the implications are. There is a very clear danger of war on the European continent that will involve NATO and by proxy the US. Aid for Ukraine is the absolute cheapest option. Europe is not going to just let Ukraine fall and will ramp up their involvement. We already have France willing to send troops.
One who consider a proxy war where thousand people die and a country get destroyed the “cheapest option” tells you how much they are in bad faith. For politicians your life is indeed cheap and something they can trash away for profits
As long as it doesn’t mess up with their business no government in the world care if russia starts a war. Where’s the aid to gaza as a genocide is happening at the hands of israel? War is a business and politicians wants more of it
Where are the negative consequences for America? Why can America invade any country it wants and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but for some reason when Russia does it we have to show them they aren’t allowed?
Only America and its allies can start wars and commit genocides?
I didn’t condone the USA’s actions, and it’s clear from your comment that you assume I would. It’s clear to me who is the aggressor in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s not Ukraine.
Don’t let your disdain for one imperialist push you over to another.
Because the US does interventionism, fund far-right politicians, etc., Russia (and China) can do as such, and even more. At least the US doesn’t want to “regain it’s old lost territories”.
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.
Notable events:
Remilitarization of the Rhineland (Mar 1936) – this was a clear power move and violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1. With no real reaction from the France/Britain, this was a clear indication to Hitler he could continue to push things much further.
Anschluss (Annexation of Austria, Mar 1938) - Germany was prepared to take Austria by force, but managed to do so with only the threat of violence. This was also against the Treaty of Versailles and also had no real reaction from the Allied powers.
Sudetenland conquest (Sept 1938) - Germany pressures Czechoslovakia for pieces of it’s territory that border Germany. British PM finally gets involved, allowing the exchange of territory for a promise of peace. This is the famous "
Peace for our time declaration.
Czech/Slovokia split and occupation/control (Mar 1939) - Under further pressure and threat of invasion, Czechoslovakia split and both come under German control.
Invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR (Sept 1939) - First open conflict. France and Britain declare war on Germany, roughly a year after the “Peace for our time” negotiations/declaration that clearly made a difference!
As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.
Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.
I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded.
Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.
The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.
The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
If there’s anything to be extrapolated from history is that ramping up for war and fueling authoritarian regimes brings you exactly war and dictatorships.
Any violence against free nations should be resisted
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
The danger of washing our hands
If there’s anyone washing their hands is politicians drinking champagne in dubai next to russian yachts. The same politicians that send people money to ukraine goverement.
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
I think this is overly naive and simplistic.
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
(I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)
The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.
Palestine doesn’t have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
Israel’s reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
Historically, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
Hamas’ actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.
So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.
So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.
Yeah, but Russia invaded Ukraine. So what should be done now.
If left to their own devices, Ukraine would be annexed to Russia and surrounding countries would be next. The casualties would probably be less here (not guaranteed) and the quality of life of the Ukrainians would drastically degrade.
If NATO sends boots on the ground, then it becomes a full blown world war with warring countries having lots of nukes. The casualties are enormous with a potential doomsday scenario.
Right now, NATO finance a proxy war. Ukrainians fight back and hard to shut out Russians. They need the tech and financing to do so. If they don’t have it, Russia takes over and we go back to the first scenario. Casualties are high.
There is no good ending where Russia negotiate peace and return home. War fucking sucks, and there is no good answer.
Yeah, but Russia invaded Ukraine. So what should be done now.
What about putting sanction on china for providing russia weapons or on emirates and turkey for allowing russian to just chill there and bypass restrictions?
If left to their own devices, Ukraine would be annexed to Russia and surrounding countries would be next.
Where do you got this from? Is Israel planning to invade the whole middle east after they invaded gaza?
the quality of life of the Ukrainians would drastically degrade.
Would it actually? Ukraine turned into an authoritatian regime under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave the country. There’s probably many brave ukranians fighting for freedom but it’s the ukranian government getting money and weapons.
The casualties are already high and the country is getting destroyed, it’s just not happening in your garden
I’m not talking about just money. Of course in current capitalist society we analyse through the lens of finances. But obviously the cost of war includes the loss of human life. And of course some people will manage to profit financially from war. This isn’t a revolutionary thought.
What I mean is that due to the obligation of being a NATO member, there is no way around having to join war in the EU. Actual boots on the ground, full blown, war machine goes choo-choo war. That costs many hundreds or even thousands of American lives. And yes, billions a day.
If you don’t want that, then having Putin lose in Ukraine in key. It’s key because it will diminish his political backing in Russia.
People in this thread clearly don’t understand what the implications are. There is a very clear danger of war on the European continent that will involve NATO and by proxy the US. Aid for Ukraine is the absolute cheapest option. Europe is not going to just let Ukraine fall and will ramp up their involvement. We already have France willing to send troops.
the US is already involved by proxy
Well not very much with that speakerguy in the house.
deleted by creator
But Amarica bad, hypercapitalist dictator good.
One who consider a proxy war where thousand people die and a country get destroyed the “cheapest option” tells you how much they are in bad faith. For politicians your life is indeed cheap and something they can trash away for profits
So no aid to Ukraine and show Russia that it can indeed start wars where thousands die and destroy countries, without negative consequences?
As long as it doesn’t mess up with their business no government in the world care if russia starts a war. Where’s the aid to gaza as a genocide is happening at the hands of israel? War is a business and politicians wants more of it
Where are the negative consequences for America? Why can America invade any country it wants and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but for some reason when Russia does it we have to show them they aren’t allowed?
Only America and its allies can start wars and commit genocides?
I didn’t condone the USA’s actions, and it’s clear from your comment that you assume I would. It’s clear to me who is the aggressor in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s not Ukraine.
Don’t let your disdain for one imperialist push you over to another.
Classic whataboutism.
Because the US does interventionism, fund far-right politicians, etc., Russia (and China) can do as such, and even more. At least the US doesn’t want to “regain it’s old lost territories”.
This is a delicate situation. If a NATO country is sending troops to Ukraine, it will escalate the war into a full blown world war.
We know what happened in both world wars, so there is no good answers here.
The good answer is not seeking war and destruction
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.
Notable events:
As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.
Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.
I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.
The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.
The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
If there’s anything to be extrapolated from history is that ramping up for war and fueling authoritarian regimes brings you exactly war and dictatorships.
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
If there’s anyone washing their hands is politicians drinking champagne in dubai next to russian yachts. The same politicians that send people money to ukraine goverement.
I think this is overly naive and simplistic.
(I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)
The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.
So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.
So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.
Yeah, but Russia invaded Ukraine. So what should be done now.
If left to their own devices, Ukraine would be annexed to Russia and surrounding countries would be next. The casualties would probably be less here (not guaranteed) and the quality of life of the Ukrainians would drastically degrade.
If NATO sends boots on the ground, then it becomes a full blown world war with warring countries having lots of nukes. The casualties are enormous with a potential doomsday scenario.
Right now, NATO finance a proxy war. Ukrainians fight back and hard to shut out Russians. They need the tech and financing to do so. If they don’t have it, Russia takes over and we go back to the first scenario. Casualties are high.
There is no good ending where Russia negotiate peace and return home. War fucking sucks, and there is no good answer.
What about putting sanction on china for providing russia weapons or on emirates and turkey for allowing russian to just chill there and bypass restrictions?
Where do you got this from? Is Israel planning to invade the whole middle east after they invaded gaza?
Would it actually? Ukraine turned into an authoritatian regime under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave the country. There’s probably many brave ukranians fighting for freedom but it’s the ukranian government getting money and weapons.
The casualties are already high and the country is getting destroyed, it’s just not happening in your garden
The answer is the west won. Presumably a good answer
I’m not talking about just money. Of course in current capitalist society we analyse through the lens of finances. But obviously the cost of war includes the loss of human life. And of course some people will manage to profit financially from war. This isn’t a revolutionary thought.
What I mean is that due to the obligation of being a NATO member, there is no way around having to join war in the EU. Actual boots on the ground, full blown, war machine goes choo-choo war. That costs many hundreds or even thousands of American lives. And yes, billions a day.
If you don’t want that, then having Putin lose in Ukraine in key. It’s key because it will diminish his political backing in Russia.
Better dispose of the ukrainians instead
America isn’t disposing anybody. Russia is.