|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States43251 Posts
On May 20 2024 03:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
If 3 months into the war there had been a public statement that tanks, artillery, aircraft would be coming shortly Russia would have had an excellent excuse (and reason) to back out. Zelensky is even calling out the fact that aid is always to late to win (but just in time to sustain).
The US did give Ukraine tanks immediately. They purchased every tank in the former eastern bloc and sent them to Ukraine on day 1. Same thing with aircraft.
The conspiracy theory that they slowrolled tanks and aircraft to drag out the war simply has no factual basis. They slowrolled western tanks and aircraft while scrambling to flood Ukraine with the heavy equipment that Ukraine had the logistical framework to support. Tanks for which they had spare parts and trained crews. Aircraft that they had trained pilots and mechanics for.
There was absolutely nothing that was going to make Russia back out. The decision was already made, the die was cast. The west tried bribery, concessions, threats etc. but they're dealing with a fundamentally irrational adversary. Russia was never looking for an excuse to get out of Ukraine, Russia views Ukraine as an intrinsic part of its empire.
This is something people seem to forget about Russia, it's not a nation state and it never has been, it's a vast multinational empire that was forged through conquest in the same era as the former British and French empires for the same reasons using the same methods. While the western empires fell due to the weakness of the central government in refusing to ethnically cleanse their colonies and replace the inhabitants with transplants Russia had no such compunction. The Russian government was entirely willing to force all the Tatars onto trains at gunpoint and replace them with loyal Russians in a way that the French were not in Algeria. Sure, the French were very opposed to decolonization, but they never went as far as Stalin would and so they lost their empire.
Russia remains in that 19th Century colonial mentality, the last empire in a world that had moved past them. Russians continue to identify with that empire as a core part of their national identity, like Englishmen jerking off over old maps of the British Empire. It is still absolutely current for them, they continue to believe in their empire as an essential and necessary part of global affairs because their empire still exists, the USSR was not defeated, Russia was then and is still now the largest empire on earth. They view Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland etc. as temporary embarrassments, separatist colonies that took advantage of a temporary Russian weakness to break away. They must be conquered in order to restore Russia to its rightful place of global ascendancy, to erase the shame of 1991, and to punish those peoples for exploiting Russia's vulnerability.
We must consider Putin and his supporters mad in the same way that we would if Britain announced it was reconquering Ireland. We cannot simply point out that the Irish would prefer not to be under British rule because that has no relevance to the mind of anyone mad enough to invade Ireland. Nor can we threaten to arm the Irish, the practicality of the war effort is not relevant. Nor can we threaten sanctions, nor offer treasure in exchange for not doing it, because they're not important. If the starting point is the insanity of "pink map good" then there is no rational argument that can be made to dissuade them, after all, pink map good.
There are a minority of weird empire fetishists in Britain but the majority recognize that the British Empire isn't compatible with modern liberal values and that the morality of reestablishing it on unwilling colonies by force is dubious. In Russia the weird empire fetishists are, if not the majority, the dominant political force. They're not backing out, there is no possible peace, no appeasement that can be provided, no threat that can be made. They'd sooner burn Ukraine to the ground than allow it to exist in a world without a dominant Russian empire.
|
On May 20 2024 10:31 Salazarz wrote:
The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.
This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.
Could you clarify this for me? You're contradicting yourself there.
Can't say Russians are the 'bad guys' but also the invasion isn't rightful or justified and bad in general. You're defining the 'bad guy' traits and are even vehemently against them and at the same time against calling Russia the bad guy for doing bad guy things.
Name a single reason why Russia shouldn't be viewed as a 'bad guy' in this war, because you only listed arguments for calling it that.
|
United States43251 Posts
On May 20 2024 15:56 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 10:31 Salazarz wrote:
The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.
This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.
Could you clarify this for me? You're contradicting yourself there. Can't say Russians are the 'bad guys' but also the invasion isn't rightful or justified and bad in general. You're defining the 'bad guy' traits and are even vehemently against them and at the same time against calling Russia the bad guy for doing bad guy things. Name a single reason why Russia shouldn't be viewed as a 'bad guy' in this war, because you only listed arguments for calling it that.
He named several. Trade wars in China. Contras in Argentina. Saddam Hussein. Were you not paying attention to his post? How much more could you possibly need?
|
On May 20 2024 14:57 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It's not reasonable to demand that I individually refute each and every one of your laughably bad claims, especially given that all you do in response is unleash another torrent of shit. But if you insist, the west did not treat Russia as an adversary. The west invested vast amounts of money in Russia, provided Russia with the technology Russia needed to develop and take part in the wider economy, integrated Russia into the European economy to the tune of $50b/year, and provided Russia with access to western military tech. Russian warships were built with German engines, France was selling modernization packages for Russian tanks up until the most recent invasion of Ukraine etc. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/eu-states-exported-weapons-to-russiaThis is simply not how you treat an adversary. The West consistently doubled down on friendship and trade with Russia because the West foolishly believed that they could make a friend from a rival the way they had with Germany. That by showing the huge benefits of cooperation over conflict they could make Russia put the follies of the 19th Century behind it. That there was some amount of German luxury cars that would make Russia no longer interested in killing everyone in Eastern Europe. They invited Russia to work in combined military exercises, they invited Russia to participate in international cooperative organizations, they deeply entwined their economies with Russia's incentivize peace, even as it made themselves vulnerable, they sold Russia weapons, and even as Russia reverted to its previous imperialist form they doubled down harder in the hope that some amount of appeasement would stop Russia from acting like Russia. Also the west was not behind the collapse of the USSR and was as surprised by it as anyone. It was painful because it was the collapse of an empire. The 90s were caused by Russians. The privatizations did not result in the west seizing the wealth of the USSR, they resulted in Russians seizing the wealth of the USSR. It is as it ever was, the cause of the problems in Russia was the Russians. Also, while we're at it, the Contras weren't Argentina, they were Nicaragua, a country that according to google is 3,805 miles from Argentina. That's the kind of thing you should be probably know if you're planning on bringing that up as an example of American crimes. Also, while we're at it, US was an invited ally in the Vietnamese civil war, not the primary party. The ARVN had far more men under arms and took far more casualties. The US was not invading Vietnam, it fought alongside the Vietnamese at the request of the Vietnamese. The goal of the US wasn't to annex Vietnam, it was to defend South Vietnam against a Soviet/PRC backed force as they had in Korea. The west is not pulling Ukraine, Ukrainians have self determination and a basic understanding of history. They are not being dragged west, they're fleeing west because they, much like the Baltic states, understand exactly what Russia is. This idea that Ukraine is some sort of victim to western sphere of influence politics is buying into the 19th Century imperialist propaganda that Putin is putting out, as if only Russia can save Ukraine from the west and that both sides are equally at fault. The allure of the west is that, unlike Russia, it has no immediate plans to level their cities and rape their women. That's the bar. The west clears that bar, not by actively seducing Ukraine but just by not being a fascist imperialist dictatorship that believes that world domination is its birthright and that the self determination of its neighbours is an affront. You're one of Putin's useful idiots. You're blindly receptive to USA bad and that's one of the many avenues that his psyops farms use to entice morons into accepting the Russia friendly narrative. There's no factual basis for anything that you're saying but you like the sound of the words in the Youtube videos that shape your opinions and you start to accept the assumptions embedded into them. That the west is really somehow the aggressor here (and their plan somehow involved building the European economy on Russian imports and arming the Russians). That the west is somehow the enemy of peace, despite the west tolerating the 2014 invasion of Ukraine in the name of peace and appeasement. That there are imperial spheres of influence, that the population must naturally belong in one, and that any attempt to leave it must naturally be a hostile act. Your posts are a modern equivalent of a 1940 American going "well of course Hitler is a warmonger but at the same time we must consider the unfairness of Versailles and the problem of the nationless bankers". It doesn't matter how many times you repeat "I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general", you're still a useful idiot for his regime, you're still buying into and parroting his core narratives. You need to consume better media instead of just letting anyone who repeats "USA bad" fuck your brain.
For a guy complaining about bad claims and torrents of shit, you sure like to post a lot of things that unsubstantiated and unverified nonsense. The West never invested 'massive amounts of money' into Russia or provided Russia with technology. There were some IMF loans (which as it often happens with IMF ended up creating their own gremlins) that were entirely repaid. Foreign investors were largely only interested in cannibalizing cheap post-Soviet assets and extracting resources at a discount. There was very little effort in developing any meaningful long-term cooperation. In fact, even the efficacy of IMF deals with Russia was heavily undermined by resistance from the G7 at the time. The 'integration into European economy' was constantly riddled with arguments over tariffs and restrictions (part of the whole nearly 20 year long accession to WTO thing, really). Of course trade happened, but there was never 'friendship.'
Your link about weapon exports is especially funny. It's 300 million EUR worth of equipment over 6 years. It's also including things like icebreaker vessels, civilian hunting rifles and who knows what else. Clearly reliable and honest reporting and not at all a propaganda hit piece.
You're right about Contras, those were in Nicaragua, the fascists US supported in Argentina were called something else. Totally my bad, doesn't really change my point at all though, does it.
Also your comment about Vietnam is just batshit insane. The US got involved in Vietnam by supporting the French colonial forces against independence fighters, the US has also then refused to recognize calls for general election (just like they did in Korea), and instead insisted on continued partition of the country and support for 'their' guy in the South. The communists in Vietnam were stronger due to actually being popular not because PRC or Soviets backed them; they represented the 'regular' people at least to some extent. Not going around killing monks probably helped their cause a bit, too. I mean, the RVN leadership that US originally supported ended up being so appalling that the US actually ended up couping said 'their guy.' That didn't stop the preparations for a broader conflict, and ultimately the made up attack in Gulf of Tonkin was used as a justification for an all out war. The plans for said war existed for months, if not years, before Gulf of Tonkin incident. Also, the ARVN didn't have 'far more' men under arms than the US military in Vietnam did, either. Various estimates pin total number of people serving in ARVN between 2 and 4 million, very close to the US number of 2.8 million. You're trying very hard to paint this as some kind of 'good guy America defending the weak' but... that's just 100% not what happened at all. Like, you're pretty much straight up rewriting history here.
Anyway, the West isn't the aggressor in the Ukraine war, that much is obvious; but the West has often been the enemy of peace. The US and its allies aren't acting in the interests of peace here or elsewhere, they're acting in the interest of preserving their hegemony and the unipolar world where US is the sole judge of what is right or wrong. This is very evident in just about every other conflict situation around the globe, be it Syria, Palestine, China, or whatever else; it's never about which side is 'right' or what decision leads to less suffering for the people involved, it's always about what will continue to cement the influence of the world's sole great power.
On May 20 2024 15:56 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 10:31 Salazarz wrote:
The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.
This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.
Could you clarify this for me? You're contradicting yourself there. Can't say Russians are the 'bad guys' but also the invasion isn't rightful or justified and bad in general. You're defining the 'bad guy' traits and are even vehemently against them and at the same time against calling Russia the bad guy for doing bad guy things. Name a single reason why Russia shouldn't be viewed as a 'bad guy' in this war, because you only listed arguments for calling it that.
I just don't think there are 'good' or 'bad' guys when it comes to politics in general. It's a tragedy for sure; and obviously sometimes someone does things that are 'good' (or at least less bad), and sometimes someone does things that are objectively terrible - like invading a country. But until we agree on some sort of set of rules about what is acceptable and what isn't, and more importantly, start applying said rules to everyone in equal measure, it seems a little silly to pretend like anyone out there has the moral high ground in general.
As far as the war in Ukraine goes, I'm not sure what a good solution would be at this point, but it sure looks like some sort of a negotiated peace is pretty much the only option left? It doesn't seem like there is the desire or the capability to actually decisively end their invasion; and Ukrainians themselves are getting sick of the war, there's actually a pretty strong sentiment that the eastern regions aren't worth fighting for because they're all traitorous russia-lovers or whatever. In that context, framing this as some sort of a Good vs Evil battle really isn't helpful, as it doesn't bring us any closer to ending the conflict.
|
On May 20 2024 16:46 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 14:57 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It's not reasonable to demand that I individually refute each and every one of your laughably bad claims, especially given that all you do in response is unleash another torrent of shit. But if you insist, the west did not treat Russia as an adversary. The west invested vast amounts of money in Russia, provided Russia with the technology Russia needed to develop and take part in the wider economy, integrated Russia into the European economy to the tune of $50b/year, and provided Russia with access to western military tech. Russian warships were built with German engines, France was selling modernization packages for Russian tanks up until the most recent invasion of Ukraine etc. https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/eu-states-exported-weapons-to-russiaThis is simply not how you treat an adversary. The West consistently doubled down on friendship and trade with Russia because the West foolishly believed that they could make a friend from a rival the way they had with Germany. That by showing the huge benefits of cooperation over conflict they could make Russia put the follies of the 19th Century behind it. That there was some amount of German luxury cars that would make Russia no longer interested in killing everyone in Eastern Europe. They invited Russia to work in combined military exercises, they invited Russia to participate in international cooperative organizations, they deeply entwined their economies with Russia's incentivize peace, even as it made themselves vulnerable, they sold Russia weapons, and even as Russia reverted to its previous imperialist form they doubled down harder in the hope that some amount of appeasement would stop Russia from acting like Russia. Also the west was not behind the collapse of the USSR and was as surprised by it as anyone. It was painful because it was the collapse of an empire. The 90s were caused by Russians. The privatizations did not result in the west seizing the wealth of the USSR, they resulted in Russians seizing the wealth of the USSR. It is as it ever was, the cause of the problems in Russia was the Russians. Also, while we're at it, the Contras weren't Argentina, they were Nicaragua, a country that according to google is 3,805 miles from Argentina. That's the kind of thing you should be probably know if you're planning on bringing that up as an example of American crimes. Also, while we're at it, US was an invited ally in the Vietnamese civil war, not the primary party. The ARVN had far more men under arms and took far more casualties. The US was not invading Vietnam, it fought alongside the Vietnamese at the request of the Vietnamese. The goal of the US wasn't to annex Vietnam, it was to defend South Vietnam against a Soviet/PRC backed force as they had in Korea. The west is not pulling Ukraine, Ukrainians have self determination and a basic understanding of history. They are not being dragged west, they're fleeing west because they, much like the Baltic states, understand exactly what Russia is. This idea that Ukraine is some sort of victim to western sphere of influence politics is buying into the 19th Century imperialist propaganda that Putin is putting out, as if only Russia can save Ukraine from the west and that both sides are equally at fault. The allure of the west is that, unlike Russia, it has no immediate plans to level their cities and rape their women. That's the bar. The west clears that bar, not by actively seducing Ukraine but just by not being a fascist imperialist dictatorship that believes that world domination is its birthright and that the self determination of its neighbours is an affront. You're one of Putin's useful idiots. You're blindly receptive to USA bad and that's one of the many avenues that his psyops farms use to entice morons into accepting the Russia friendly narrative. There's no factual basis for anything that you're saying but you like the sound of the words in the Youtube videos that shape your opinions and you start to accept the assumptions embedded into them. That the west is really somehow the aggressor here (and their plan somehow involved building the European economy on Russian imports and arming the Russians). That the west is somehow the enemy of peace, despite the west tolerating the 2014 invasion of Ukraine in the name of peace and appeasement. That there are imperial spheres of influence, that the population must naturally belong in one, and that any attempt to leave it must naturally be a hostile act. Your posts are a modern equivalent of a 1940 American going "well of course Hitler is a warmonger but at the same time we must consider the unfairness of Versailles and the problem of the nationless bankers". It doesn't matter how many times you repeat "I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general", you're still a useful idiot for his regime, you're still buying into and parroting his core narratives. You need to consume better media instead of just letting anyone who repeats "USA bad" fuck your brain. For a guy complaining about bad claims and torrents of shit, you sure like to post a lot of things that unsubstantiated and unverified nonsense. The West never invested 'massive amounts of money' into Russia or provided Russia with technology. There were some IMF loans (which as it often happens with IMF ended up creating their own gremlins) that were entirely repaid. Foreign investors were largely only interested in cannibalizing cheap post-Soviet assets and extracting resources at a discount. There was very little effort in developing any meaningful long-term cooperation. In fact, even the efficacy of IMF deals with Russia was heavily undermined by resistance from the G7 at the time. The 'integration into European economy' was constantly riddled with arguments over tariffs and restrictions (part of the whole nearly 20 year long accession to WTO thing, really). Of course trade happened, but there was never 'friendship.' Your link about weapon exports is especially funny. It's 300 million EUR worth of equipment over 6 years. It's also including things like icebreaker vessels, civilian hunting rifles and who knows what else. Clearly reliable and honest reporting and not at all a propaganda hit piece. You're right about Contras, those were in Nicaragua, the fascists US supported in Argentina were called something else. Totally my bad, doesn't really change my point at all though, does it. Also your comment about Vietnam is just batshit insane. The US got involved in Vietnam by supporting the French colonial forces against independence fighters, the US has also then refused to recognize calls for general election (just like they did in Korea), and instead insisted on continued partition of the country and support for 'their' guy in the South. The communists in Vietnam were stronger due to actually being popular not because PRC or Soviets backed them; they represented the 'regular' people at least to some extent. Not going around killing monks probably helped their cause a bit, too. I mean, the RVN leadership that US originally supported ended up being so appalling that the US actually ended up couping said 'their guy.' That didn't stop the preparations for a broader conflict, and ultimately the made up attack in Gulf of Tonkin was used as a justification for an all out war. The plans for said war existed for months, if not years, before Gulf of Tonkin incident. Also, the ARVN didn't have 'far more' men under arms than the US military in Vietnam did, either. Various estimates pin total number of people serving in ARVN between 2 and 4 million, very close to the US number of 2.8 million. You're trying very hard to paint this as some kind of 'good guy America defending the weak' but... that's just 100% not what happened at all. Like, you're pretty much straight up rewriting history here. Anyway, the West isn't the aggressor in the Ukraine war, that much is obvious; but the West has often been the enemy of peace. The US and its allies aren't acting in the interests of peace here or elsewhere, they're acting in the interest of preserving their hegemony and the unipolar world where US is the sole judge of what is right or wrong. This is very evident in just about every other conflict situation around the globe, be it Syria, Palestine, China, or whatever else; it's never about which side is 'right' or what decision leads to less suffering for the people involved, it's always about what will continue to cement the influence of the world's sole great power. Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 15:56 Manit0u wrote:On May 20 2024 10:31 Salazarz wrote:
The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.
This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.
Could you clarify this for me? You're contradicting yourself there. Can't say Russians are the 'bad guys' but also the invasion isn't rightful or justified and bad in general. You're defining the 'bad guy' traits and are even vehemently against them and at the same time against calling Russia the bad guy for doing bad guy things. Name a single reason why Russia shouldn't be viewed as a 'bad guy' in this war, because you only listed arguments for calling it that. I just don't think there are 'good' or 'bad' guys when it comes to politics in general. It's a tragedy for sure; and obviously sometimes someone does things that are 'good' (or at least less bad), and sometimes someone does things that are objectively terrible - like invading a country. But until we agree on some sort of set of rules about what is acceptable and what isn't, and more importantly, start applying said rules to everyone in equal measure, it seems a little silly to pretend like anyone out there has the moral high ground in general. As far as the war in Ukraine goes, I'm not sure what a good solution would be at this point, but it sure looks like some sort of a negotiated peace is pretty much the only option left? It doesn't seem like there is the desire or the capability to actually decisively end their invasion; and Ukrainians themselves are getting sick of the war, there's actually a pretty strong sentiment that the eastern regions aren't worth fighting for because they're all traitorous russia-lovers or whatever. In that context, framing this as some sort of a Good vs Evil battle really isn't helpful, as it doesn't bring us any closer to ending the conflict.
The reply's stance that politics lacks "good" and "bad" actors might be seen as morally relativistic, potentially dismissing legitimate moral judgments about actions like invasions and human rights abuses.
|
Canada11371 Posts
"The other direction that is being pulled is of course the Republicans, who are equally influenced by said defence industry, Russia, and sheer incompetence. And then you have the Democrats, currently in power, who, at least on the surface, are seemingly not incredibly happy with the current situation, but struggles to get anything done about it."
See, you would think so, but their actions and rhetoric says the very opposite. I would have thought that they would have been salivating at the chance to clear out old stock and produce new more equipment, but maybe they aren't as captured by the industrial-military complex as we were led to believe.
Every step of the way Republicans have been bellyaching about handing over equipment that would have would have required decommissioning anyways as the fuel degrades. Ukraine is quite willing to dispose of it and yet Republicans dragged their feet. Even the multiple packages have been opposed (being characterized as though Ukraine is getting fat wads of cash instead of US actually shifting current stock to Ukraine and spending money at home on its own factories for production)... why the foot dragging if the Republicans are being influenced by the defence industry? None of it aligns with an intentional prolonging of the war in order to secure more contracts; whereas it seems more easily explained by a combination of new-found isolationism as well as some level of successful penetration of Russian talking points with certain politicians and just plain old intractability in Ye Old Budget Fight.
|
On May 20 2024 18:28 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +"The other direction that is being pulled is of course the Republicans, who are equally influenced by said defence industry, Russia, and sheer incompetence. And then you have the Democrats, currently in power, who, at least on the surface, are seemingly not incredibly happy with the current situation, but struggles to get anything done about it." See, you would think so, but their actions and rhetoric says the very opposite. I would have thought that they would have been salivating at the chance to clear out old stock and produce new more equipment, but maybe they aren't as captured by the industrial-military complex as we were led to believe. Every step of the way Republicans have been bellyaching about handing over equipment that would have would have required decommissioning anyways as the fuel degrades. Ukraine is quite willing to dispose of it and yet Republicans dragged their feet. Even the multiple packages have been opposed (being characterized as though Ukraine is getting fat wads of cash instead of US actually shifting current stock to Ukraine and spending money at home on its own factories for production)... why the foot dragging if the Republicans are being influenced by the defence industry? None of it aligns with an intentional prolonging of the war in order to secure more contracts; whereas it seems more easily explained by a combination of new-found isolationism as well as some level of successful penetration of Russian talking points with certain politicians and just plain old intractability in Ye Old Budget Fight.
Yeah, the issue with Republicans atm is that it's pointless to try to eek out any sense of logic or reason behind their motives. They are currently a party who's sole identity is that they don't have one. They seem equally happy selling out to the lowest bidder as they are to oppose any push by the democrats purely for the reason that they can't be seen cooperating or agreeing with them on any singular issue. They're not a party that is busy trying to find out how to best govern, they're a party of narcissists with low morals who's busy trying to figure out what's best for themselves as individuals.
Republicans aren't passing obviously beneficial packages because it doesn't benefit all of their benefactors, meaning Russia, and because the Democrats wants it; and they can't have none of that.
|
Lets not get distracted from the fact that officially, Zelensky's term as president ends today - May 20th.
While the MSN has been hard at work assuring us that everything is completely fine, 'there is no point in having elections because we already know who would win', 'don't worry about it', its hard not to see how long they are trying to reach with their excuses. One of the more popular narratives is that the constitution doesn't allow elections during martial law, what they don't mention is why doesn't the presidents office just ask for clarification from Ukraine's Constitutional Court?
That would be because Zelensky has been at open war with Ukraine's Constitutional Court for years now, even issuing decrees to dissolve it and dismiss the chairman, though he did not have the rights to do that under the Constitution so they just ignored him. If anyone is interested I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet there is a lot of material on the matter, especially when you get to NABU and the 2020 US election.
In any case anything Zelensky signs for here on out is not legally binding,
|
Country currently at war and with a significant portion being held by invading forces does not hold an election.
Russian trolls pretend this is in any way unusual.
more news at 11.
|
On May 20 2024 23:48 zeo wrote:
Lets not get distracted from the fact that officially, Zelensky's term as president ends today - May 20th.
While the MSN has been hard at work assuring us that everything is completely fine, 'there is no point in having elections because we already know who would win', 'don't worry about it', its hard not to see how long they are trying to reach with their excuses. One of the more popular narratives is that the constitution doesn't allow elections during martial law, what they don't mention is why doesn't the presidents office just ask for clarification from Ukraine's Constitutional Court?
That would be because Zelensky has been at open war with Ukraine's Constitutional Court for years now, even issuing decrees to dissolve it and dismiss the chairman, though he did not have the rights do do that under the Constitution so they just ignored him. If anyone is interested I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet there is a lot of material on the matter, especially when you get to NABU and the 2020 US election.
In any case anything Zelensky signs for here on out is not legally binding,
You know literally no one here cares about this bad take you keep bringing up.
And you claim neutral but you never once mentions that putin has an iron grip and changed the law to extend term limit forever, they didn't even bother with debates in their recent "elections"
|
United States43251 Posts
On May 20 2024 23:48 zeo wrote:
Lets not get distracted from the fact that officially, Zelensky's term as president ends today - May 20th.
While the MSN has been hard at work assuring us that everything is completely fine, 'there is no point in having elections because we already know who would win', 'don't worry about it', its hard not to see how long they are trying to reach with their excuses. One of the more popular narratives is that the constitution doesn't allow elections during martial law, what they don't mention is why doesn't the presidents office just ask for clarification from Ukraine's Constitutional Court?
That would be because Zelensky has been at open war with Ukraine's Constitutional Court for years now, even issuing decrees to dissolve it and dismiss the chairman, though he did not have the rights to do that under the Constitution so they just ignored him. If anyone is interested I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet there is a lot of material on the matter, especially when you get to NABU and the 2020 US election.
In any case anything Zelensky signs for here on out is not legally binding,
Why are you not blaming Russia for this?
|
Ukraine's constitution prevents elections during martial law. It would be illegal to hold elections now. For elections to happen: 1) Russia needs to get out of Ukraine and then 2) Ukrainian Parliament needs to lift martial law.
It's nothing strange really. Many countries have such safeguards built in their constitutions. No elections during war. Poland has similar laws.
If You would really care about this topic, you would know that. There is no constitutional question here. The law is very clear about that. You only care about spreading idiotic Russian talking points.
|
Russia not having held a fair election since 2004? "Zzzzz"
Ukraine not holding an election because it's under a literal invasion and can't possibly hold one in through fairly and democratic process, whilst also being backed up by their own constitution? "Rablrablrablrabl!"
I generally welcome and try to engage in a fair debate on this thread, despite various views. But fuck off already with this horseshit. If you can't look inward even a mm, why are you even bothering to pretend to yourself that you're somehow arguing in good faith?
Russia can pull out of Ukraine at any time they want, and let them hold a proper and fair election
|
On May 21 2024 00:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 23:48 zeo wrote:
Lets not get distracted from the fact that officially, Zelensky's term as president ends today - May 20th.
While the MSN has been hard at work assuring us that everything is completely fine, 'there is no point in having elections because we already know who would win', 'don't worry about it', its hard not to see how long they are trying to reach with their excuses. One of the more popular narratives is that the constitution doesn't allow elections during martial law, what they don't mention is why doesn't the presidents office just ask for clarification from Ukraine's Constitutional Court?
That would be because Zelensky has been at open war with Ukraine's Constitutional Court for years now, even issuing decrees to dissolve it and dismiss the chairman, though he did not have the rights to do that under the Constitution so they just ignored him. If anyone is interested I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet there is a lot of material on the matter, especially when you get to NABU and the 2020 US election.
In any case anything Zelensky signs for here on out is not legally binding, Why are you not blaming Russia for this?
Are you implying that Russia should be organizing elections in Kiev? Russia held its own elections not so long ago, holding elections on the territory controlled by the government in Kiev should be organized by that state.
They held elections just fine since 2015 when they were stating that parts of the country were under foreign occupation and the entire population couldn't vote, why would they be scared now?
They banned all opposition parties, they persecute all dissidents, they banned all media not under their control, they have complete control and censorship over social media and the internet. What's the problem?
On May 21 2024 00:50 Silvanel wrote:
Ukraine's constitution prevents elections during martial law. It would be illegal to hold elections now. For elections to happen: 1) Russia needs to get out of Ukraine and then 2) Ukrainian Parliament needs to lift martial law.
It's nothing strange really. Many countries have such safeguards built in their constitutions. No elections during war. Poland has similar laws.
If You would really care about this topic, you would know that. There is no constitutional question here. The law is very clear about that. You only care about spreading idiotic Russian talking points.
What does the Constitutional Court in Ukraine say about this matter?
|
Has zeo actually accepted any opposing view for the duration of this thread? Genuine question, I don't read his posts as I always know what kind of content he is going to post (in favour of Russia). And if he hasn't, why do you keep arguing with him, do you expect him to change his mind?
|
"They banned all opposition parties, they persecute all dissidents, they banned all media not under their control, they have complete control and censorship over social media and the internet. What's the problem?"
This is zeo talking about russia right?
|
Canada11371 Posts
When democracies go to war- like really go to war, things look a little more autocratic. See Canada's War Measure Act in both world wars where they seized control of railroads and compelled factories to militarize. Furthermore, in WWI most of the main line parties combined into a Union government and only ran one Union candidate per riding. So even though there was an election, there was basically only one option. (Plus additional election shenanigans to guarantee a Union victory. It was pretty bad.) The strength of a democracy, however, is what happens after the war. Does the government retain the seized power or does it give it up? For Ukraine this is still an open question as they are still in an existential war.
Meanwhile Russia imprisons opposition and murders leaders of opposition during peace time. Not to mention the surprising number of powerful Russians that just happen to lean against faulty railings in high apartments. And I don't hear you say boo about the state of Russia's so-called democracy. You pat yourself on the back as being Mr Rational come to school us silly Westerns with Facts and Logic. But here you flaunt the colours you've always shown: you are ideologically possessed. You say nothing about Russia's corrupt politics and the only time you bemoan Ukraine's democracy or their losses is when it would mean Russia takes Ukrainian territory without a fight. Spare me your feigned concern and stick with cheerleading each and every Russian gain; it suits you better.
|
United States43251 Posts
On May 21 2024 01:02 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 00:27 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2024 23:48 zeo wrote:
Lets not get distracted from the fact that officially, Zelensky's term as president ends today - May 20th.
While the MSN has been hard at work assuring us that everything is completely fine, 'there is no point in having elections because we already know who would win', 'don't worry about it', its hard not to see how long they are trying to reach with their excuses. One of the more popular narratives is that the constitution doesn't allow elections during martial law, what they don't mention is why doesn't the presidents office just ask for clarification from Ukraine's Constitutional Court?
That would be because Zelensky has been at open war with Ukraine's Constitutional Court for years now, even issuing decrees to dissolve it and dismiss the chairman, though he did not have the rights to do that under the Constitution so they just ignored him. If anyone is interested I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet there is a lot of material on the matter, especially when you get to NABU and the 2020 US election.
In any case anything Zelensky signs for here on out is not legally binding, Why are you not blaming Russia for this? Are you implying that Russia should be organizing elections in Kiev? Russia held its own elections not so long ago, holding elections on the territory controlled by the government in Kiev should be organized by that state. They held elections just fine since 2015 when they were stating that parts of the country were under foreign occupation and the entire population couldn't vote, why would they be scared now? They banned all opposition parties, they persecute all dissidents, they banned all media not under their control, they have complete control and censorship over social media and the internet. What's the problem? Show nested quote +On May 21 2024 00:50 Silvanel wrote:
Ukraine's constitution prevents elections during martial law. It would be illegal to hold elections now. For elections to happen: 1) Russia needs to get out of Ukraine and then 2) Ukrainian Parliament needs to lift martial law.
It's nothing strange really. Many countries have such safeguards built in their constitutions. No elections during war. Poland has similar laws.
If You would really care about this topic, you would know that. There is no constitutional question here. The law is very clear about that. You only care about spreading idiotic Russian talking points. What does the Constitutional Court in Ukraine say about this matter?
I’m saying that the reason Ukraine can’t hold elections is that Russian soldiers are occupying large parts of Ukraine and interfering with the ability of those Ukrainians to attend Ukrainian polling stations. Ukraine held elections before the invasion, its the invasion that is preventing it.
|
Finland946 Posts
I highly recommend searching for yourselves on the internet
It's mostly just this.
|
On May 21 2024 01:18 sertas wrote:
"They banned all opposition parties, they persecute all dissidents, they banned all media not under their control, they have complete control and censorship over social media and the internet. What's the problem?"
This is zeo talking about russia right?
The fact is that the country you are cheerleading for is 'everything wrong with Russia: dialed to 11'. Sticking your head in the sand and resorting to whataboutist mental gymnastics is not an argument.
W-w-well your guy did something slightly less bad than our guy. ha! take that!
If Putin canceled elections because the polling stations were being bombed, which they were - I highly doubt your reaction would be 'thats peak democracy right there, elections? now? pffft'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
