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.
On April 28 2025 00:25 Uldridge wrote: The problem with the "UA should take the deal" because less bad option, is that they don't want to look at it from a UA centric vision. They look at it from a Western, or US perspective, not considering they have their own motives, not just reacting from own impulses, only reacting because of "us or rus" unfluences. It's disgusting. UA is fighting. Either you support them in their fight and you're pro UA or you're against them. Not much middle ground tbh. Saying they should take a deal because it will cause less suffering, might seen good on paper, but the big problem is that this is exactly what Russia wants and not what UA wants. When UA decides to stop fighting they'll let you know. And then you can wag your finger with a post hoc analysis to declare to the world they should've taken a deal at whatever point in time all the internet analysists will discuss about ad infinitum.
Kremlin shills like GH always pretend Russia is not openly broadcasting its genocidal intentions. Here's an article laying out their intentions:
And here's Timothy Snyder explaining how their war turned genocidal:
They basically categorized Ukrainians into three groups: (A) those that can be willingly russified, (B) those that can be forcefully russified through terror, and (C) those completely immune to russification. They thought that the vast majority of Ukrainians belong to the first category. Gradually, they've come to the realization that actually the vast majority of Ukrainians belong to the other two categories, with tens of millions in the latter. On their national TV they've been openly discussing how they may have to kill millions of people to achieve their goal.
Then you have clowns like GH come and tell us how Ukraine surrendering somehow will result in less suffering.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
Answer the question you muppet. It's always the same with you Russian shills. + Show Spoiler +
Ukraine, Europe and the US have some known and some unknown problems that they are magically unable to solve. Russia is some magical fucking entity without any problems.
It's why no one is taking you serious. You sprout stupid inane bullshit in every single thread without any connection to reality.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind.
Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war.
24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border
An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%).
A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored.
Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it.
The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore.
With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take
.
This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians
December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case).
This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind.
Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war.
24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border
An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%).
A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored.
Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it.
The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore.
With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take
.
This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians
December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case).
This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
No, what I am saying is that you are full of shit. + Show Spoiler +
You deliberately misrepresent the facts to support the propaganda that you are trying to peddle.
You are also arguing for something that isn't even an option. There is no "making a deal is the lesser evil" kind of argument because there cannot be a deal unless the positions shift fundamentally. The choice isn't between Ukraine making a painful peace deal or continuing an even more painful war. The choice is between abandoning Ukraine in their fight against imperalist aggression, and supporting Ukraine until Russia cannot continue their war of aggression anymore. Those are the two options on the table. Everything else is a smokescreen to erode support
.
Perhaps you should put a "RussianHorizon" before your posts so that everyone clearly understands your position. + Show Spoiler +
Masquerading as someone empathetic to the Ukrainian people is something that zeo tried as well, though his mask slipped rather quickly. As does yours, for that matter.
This is more of the sort of emotional lashing out and petulant name calling I was talking about. The kind I've unfortunately come to expect from many of you.
You guys follow the "The ruble/Russia is collapsing imminently!" propaganda more closely than I do. There's probably a better case for why Russia can't last a year or two than I've seen actually presented here that you all just sorta operate from. I see stuff like this:
You'll receive a generous salary, a bumper bonus and an interest-free loan to buy a home. The challenge? You'll have to fight on the frontlines of Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II.
It's a tough sell to young people with their whole lives ahead of them.
On top of the mortgage deal, the package includes a monthly salary of up to $2,900, way above the national average wage of about $520, a cash bonus of 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) and a one-year exemption from mobilization after a year of service.
That's a lot of money. Someone else can do better PPP math, but based on median income, that's basically like recruiting people to the US military by promising them ~$15,000 a month and a $200,000 signing bonus. Shit would have to be pretty dire for the recruitment offices to not be flooded with recruits in most countries. In Ukraine?
Two months after Ukraine launched a national drive to recruit young people to fight in its tired and aged armed forces for a year, fewer than 500 have signed contracts, according to Pavlo Palisa, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's military adviser.
Which is not something I'd expect to see posted by anyone that's mad at me for doing so. Not because anything that isn't delusionally pro-Ukraine is actually Russian propaganda, but again, because you're lashing out emotionally at uncomfortable truths/facts.
As for the point about Ukraine taking a deal being the lesser evil, I'd refer you to my response to Drone:
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
The "Ukraine should take a deal" people always imagine some kind of reasonable deal that could be struck and then wonder why Ukraine doesn't just take the deal that they imagine exists. They can never point to a time that Russia actually offered the deal they imagine but they still put the blame on Ukraine for failing to accept it.
On April 28 2025 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean we can do this -
GH, what type of peace deal do you think Ukraine should accept?
Suppose that somewhat depends on the conditions one believes they're operating under, but basically:
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
On April 28 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Not because anything that isn't delusionally pro-Ukraine is actually Russian propaganda, but again, because you're lashing out emotionally at uncomfortable truths/facts.
Mate, you can't pull this one out after your previous response to Nezgar was basically "ok what I said wasn't true but it feels true".
Their exasperated tone is due to your unwillingness to absorb any information while attempting to maintain un entirely unearned sage tone.
Ukraine has a larger and more resourceful neighbour intent on erasing its identity. They are willing to cede territory but an absolute must have condition is implemented security guarantees. This was explained to you 5 pages ago by multiple people, was never addressed, and 0 progress has been made since then because there is nothing that can make you deviate from catchphrases.
You're now grasping at straws frantically googling flimsy statistics to support the conclusion you had already arrived at beforehand. You're approaching this topic the same way RFK Jr approaches autism, that should give you some pause.
On April 28 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Not because anything that isn't delusionally pro-Ukraine is actually Russian propaganda, but again, because you're lashing out emotionally at uncomfortable truths/facts.
Mate, you can't pull this one out after your previous response to Nezgar was basically "ok what I said wasn't true but it feels true".
Their exasperated tone is due to your unwillingness to absorb any information while attempting to maintain un entirely unearned sage tone.
Ukraine has a larger and more resourceful neighbour intent on erasing its identity. They are willing to cede territory but an absolute must have condition is implemented security guarantees. This was explained to you 5 pages ago by multiple people, was never addressed, and 0 progress has been made since then because there is nothing that can make you deviate from catchphrases.
You're now grasping at straws frantically googling flimsy statistics to support the conclusion you had already arrived at beforehand. You're approaching this topic the same way RFK Jr approaches autism, that should give you some pause.
TL;DR
GH is a troll and just like in the US politics thread where he adopted multiple personas to gain attention when people started to ignore him he has now migrated to other threads.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I love how your direct response to what sort of peace deal Ukraine should accept has absolutely nothing to do with a peace deal, Basically outright stating that you are just full of shit.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
Answer the question you muppet. It's always the same with you Russian shills. + Show Spoiler +
Ukraine, Europe and the US have some known and some unknown problems that they are magically unable to solve. Russia is some magical fucking entity without any problems.
It's why no one is taking you serious. You sprout stupid inane bullshit in every single thread without any connection to reality.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind.
Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war.
24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border
An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%).
A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored.
Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it.
The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore.
With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take
.
This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians
December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case).
This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
I knew if I was patient enough, someone would get it.
Going back to 2015 there's been a thing about taking uncomfortable facts, like Canada's parliament mistakenly giving a Nazi a standing ovation, and calling it Russian propaganda.
Just because Russia says 2+2=4, doesn't mean anyone that also says 2+2=4 has been tricked by Russian propaganda.
I don't think anyone actually disagrees with the substance of what I'm saying + Show Spoiler +
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +
(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
Basically; get abandoned by the west, have the old guard take power, then mostly be forgotten/moved on from with little to no regard for the devastation endured as a consequence.
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
or your elaboration on it, they are just emotionally lashing out because the truths are uncomfortable.
Honest question. If the war continues exactly like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are) for 2 more years. HOW do you see Russia handling that? Concrete examples. What will they do to solve the major challenges they are facing?
"Like it currently is (with the Russian gains as they are)" is a bit vague, but I don't think that's a likely scenario.
If somehow that happened (which would assume support from the US continues on some level while the EU ramps up) I could see it putting Russia on the backfoot, but it's only getting easier to circumvent sanctions. With Netanyahu being welcomed in DC, international law is a joke. So unless the EU is going to send troops, you're probably looking at roughly the same spot, but with more Ukrainians
Ukrainians’ current attitudes toward the war represent a decisive shift from where they stood after it began in late February 2022. Surveyed in the months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukrainians were defiant, with 73% preferring fighting until victory.
In 2023, support for fighting until victory slipped, but more than twice as many Ukrainians favored a continued fight (63%) over a negotiated peace (27%). Fatigue has intensified this year [2024], with support for negotiated peace rising to 52%, the first time it has reached a majority.
ready to be sold an explanation for why an unpleasant deal was the least bad option.
It's hard to know what will be happening in/with the US in ~2 years, but it could easily make Ukraine-Russia take a back seat globally.
You either deliberately misrepresents statistics or are so caught up in your bubble that you cannot separate facts from fiction anymore. It specifically mentioned in the poll that out of those those 52% who favoured a negotiated ending to the war, only around half of them were willing to make ANY territorial concessions. To put that into slightly different numbers that perhaps even you can understand: 9% Declined to comment 38% Told Russia to fuck off 20% Were in favour of a peace deal but with no territorial concession. 27% Were in favour of a peace deal with at least some territorial concessions, though it's not specified which exactly. 5% Were in favour of a peace deal but did not specify what they had in mind.
Further polls, like the National Survey of Ukraine from the same period, paints an entirely different picture. 56% believed that Ukraine will definitely win the war 32% believed that Ukraine will likely win the war.
24% favoured a peace deal with the current borders along the existing frontline 71% said that they want to recapture all territories of the 1991 border
An even bigger percentage of Ukrainians favoured recapturing the 2022 borders when offered that choice instead of the 1991 borders (73%).
A lot of the misinformation you are peddling has been debunked already. Favouring a negotiated peace but then not making any concessions in a peace deal is not a peace deal, it's straight up winning the war. And that is without all the other baggage ignored.
Even IF Ukraine was willing to make territorial concessions and it had a broad support of the public, they wouldn't then also reject any security guarantees. That is just not going to happen, not matter how much you want to believe it.
The positions are mutually exclusive. Russia wants to end the Ukrainian state and identity. Russification. Ukraine wants to continue as a nation and as a people. Until one side moves from their fundamental war goal, you cannot negotiate anything. And so the war will continue until one of the two sides collapses and cannot continue the war anymore.
With even moderate Western support and excluding the US entirely, Ukraine is on pace to outlast Russia. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow for the tankies, but that is the material situation. Russia is making small gains with a rate of attrition that is not sustainable at the current rate past 2025, and probably not past 2026 at even a reduced rate. The only way for Russia to achieve their war goal is through eroding western support and hoping that this is enough to cause a collapse in Ukraine before they suffer that fate. None of what you say, either here or in any other political thread, holds any kind of meaning or moral value as long as you are standing on the wrong side of the line - in support of the Russian side. I think it's a frankly pathetic position to take
.
This is more emotional lashing out, but all I'm saying that you're disagreeing with there is that more Ukrainians are going in the "make a deal" direction. Though it should be noted it's not just more Ukrainians
December polling by YouGov in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the UK found public desire to stand by Ukraine until victory – even if that meant prolonging the war – had slumped in all seven countries over the past 12 months.
Support for an alternative resolution to the conflict – a negotiated end to the fighting, even if that left Russia in control of parts of Ukraine – had increased in every country, the survey found
Ukrainians can (and very well might) keep fighting, regardless of how much western support they're getting (or not getting) a year or so from now, but they aren't going to be as successful at defending themselves as they have been if it's noticeably less military support specifically (which it increasingly looks like will be the case).
This dynamic will be exacerbated if/when Trump further helps Russia sustain their efforts by relaxing sanctions on them.
No, what I am saying is that you are full of shit. + Show Spoiler +
You deliberately misrepresent the facts to support the propaganda that you are trying to peddle.
You are also arguing for something that isn't even an option. There is no "making a deal is the lesser evil" kind of argument because there cannot be a deal unless the positions shift fundamentally. The choice isn't between Ukraine making a painful peace deal or continuing an even more painful war. The choice is between abandoning Ukraine in their fight against imperalist aggression, and supporting Ukraine until Russia cannot continue their war of aggression anymore. Those are the two options on the table. Everything else is a smokescreen to erode support
.
Perhaps you should put a "RussianHorizon" before your posts so that everyone clearly understands your position. + Show Spoiler +
Masquerading as someone empathetic to the Ukrainian people is something that zeo tried as well, though his mask slipped rather quickly. As does yours, for that matter.
This is more of the sort of emotional lashing out and petulant name calling I was talking about. The kind I've unfortunately come to expect from many of you.
You guys follow the "The ruble/Russia is collapsing imminently!" propaganda more closely than I do. There's probably a better case for why Russia can't last a year or two than I've seen actually presented here that you all just sorta operate from. I see stuff like this:
You'll receive a generous salary, a bumper bonus and an interest-free loan to buy a home. The challenge? You'll have to fight on the frontlines of Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II.
It's a tough sell to young people with their whole lives ahead of them.
On top of the mortgage deal, the package includes a monthly salary of up to $2,900, way above the national average wage of about $520, a cash bonus of 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) and a one-year exemption from mobilization after a year of service.
That's a lot of money. Someone else can do better PPP math, but based on median income, that's basically like recruiting people to the US military by promising them ~$15,000 a month and a $200,000 signing bonus. Shit would have to be pretty dire for the recruitment offices to not be flooded with recruits in most countries. In Ukraine?
Two months after Ukraine launched a national drive to recruit young people to fight in its tired and aged armed forces for a year, fewer than 500 have signed contracts, according to Pavlo Palisa, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's military adviser.
Which is not something I'd expect to see posted by anyone that's mad at me for doing so. Not because anything that isn't delusionally pro-Ukraine is actually Russian propaganda, but again, because you're lashing out emotionally at uncomfortable truths/facts.
As for the point about Ukraine taking a deal being the lesser evil, I'd refer you to my response to Drone:
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
The people who aren't in a disinformation bubble, like you are, already know that Russia won't accept any deal that gives Ukraine security guarantees. This is why they have moved on from this stupid talking point. You are asking to be convinced of the truth, but at the same time you actively demonstrate that facts cannot convince you. It's a completely fruitless endeavor. And it's not a demand or discussion or argument made in good faith.
No amount of evidence to the contrary would convince you. We could link you pages of equipment loss statistics, satellite images of depleted or depleting Russian stockpiles, analysis of personnel losses and recruitment numbers. None of that would matter to you. We could offer hard numbers or anecdotes, videos and images and spreadsheets. None of that would matter to you. You are so genuinely uninformed about this, or so fundamentally dishonest about this, that all of this is wasted time.
So the best we can do is combat some of the most vile disinformation and, frankly, tell you to fuck off. We aren't buying the bullshit you are trying to sell so move on. There is no patience or tolerance left for Russian disinformation tools like you. You aren't welcome here. I hope you've noticed that. And if not, I will make sure to remind you again.
On April 28 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Not because anything that isn't delusionally pro-Ukraine is actually Russian propaganda, but again, because you're lashing out emotionally at uncomfortable truths/facts.
Mate, you can't pull this one out after your previous response to Nezgar was basically "ok what I said wasn't true but it feels true".
Their exasperated tone is due to your unwillingness to absorb any information while attempting to maintain un entirely unearned sage tone.
Ukraine has a larger and more resourceful neighbour intent on erasing its identity. They are willing to cede territory but an absolute must have condition is implemented security guarantees. This was explained to you 5 pages ago by multiple people, was never addressed, and 0 progress has been made since then because there is nothing that can make you deviate from catchphrases.
You're now grasping at straws frantically googling flimsy statistics to support the conclusion you had already arrived at beforehand. You're approaching this topic the same way RFK Jr approaches autism, that should give you some pause.
I think part of the problem is that people are having a hard time keeping both the point I was making about lesser evilism that Legan very thoughtfully explained for those that were still struggling to get it (to little avail, clearly).
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote: In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. + Show Spoiler +
It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
and what I'm saying is Ukraine's best path forward imo, in their brains at the same time.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
While understanding that the combined point that I'm making is that how they perceive me is basically how they are to Palestinians and other oppressed peoples. Hence me pointing out, and Legan explaining in excruciating detail, the obvious contradictions in:
"If _________ want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”
With "Ukrainians" being basically the only acceptable answer to fill in that blank, while "Palestinians" and others need not apply.
Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom. Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
I don’t think it’s trolling. I think if we accept his worldview at face value, bad faith argumentation is a moral imperative when it is weaponized against a destructive hegemony. I don’t think GH is directly pro-Russia, but I do think he views bad faith argumentation and disinformation as a moral imperative.
He’s not dumb and he definitely understands he’s making a false equivalence when he points to polls supporting “a deal”, then pretends those polls are supporting very specific Ukrainian concessions. Ukrainians of course want the war to end and for people to stop dying. But Ukrainians also understand a bad deal is just a decision to let Russia slowly chip away at Ukraine or finish them off at the ideal moment. A bad deal is not an end to people dying. A bad deal causes more Ukrainians to die and for their identity to be slowly erased. The only good deal is one that protects Ukraine from Russia long-term.
We have the last 15 years showing us bad faith argumentation, disinformation, etc is super effective and we are watching it crush the American empire and global hegemony right now. Anyone who is against either of those things is simply “doing the right thing” in their eyes by joining in whatever way they can.
It’s unfortunate because despite many times when I enjoy conversing with GH, it’s hard to excuse displays like this they are so transparent and so disruptive to conversation.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 02:43 warding wrote: Besides the question of it being 'understandable' or not, these war crimes by the Ukranian forces are big strategic mistakes. Ukraine's effort depends on Western support. That support is sensitive to these questions. I'm sure that Ukrainian leadership understands this.
I don't know how sensitive Western support is but this has been a known issue for years (Azov and Aidar battalions being some of the better known examples). There was hardly a peep when the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted out a neo nazi Azov soldier smearing pig fat on bullets meant for Muslim fighters or when the Ukrainian newscaster was quoting Adolf Eichmann.
What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] I don't know how sensitive Western support is but this has been a known issue for years (Azov and Aidar battalions being some of the better known examples). There was hardly a peep when the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted out a neo nazi Azov soldier smearing pig fat on bullets meant for Muslim fighters or when the Ukrainian newscaster was quoting Adolf Eichmann.
What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
There are some neo-Nazis in Ukraine so you choose to support an actual fascist dictatorship, with even more neo-Nazis. Great logic you've got there.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] I don't know how sensitive Western support is but this has been a known issue for years (Azov and Aidar battalions being some of the better known examples). There was hardly a peep when the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted out a neo nazi Azov soldier smearing pig fat on bullets meant for Muslim fighters or when the Ukrainian newscaster was quoting Adolf Eichmann.
What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
What are the actual news from the frontlines now? As I understood from a few drops of info here and there in this thread - Russian army is still (very?) slowly moving forward and UAF were pushed out of Kursk region, but the consensus (?) is that with current rate of progress and losses Russia won't be able to gain anything significant any time soon, not before they will have no resources left? Is this correct?
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 10:37 WombaT wrote: [quote] What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
Is anyone (I'm looking at you Mohdoo for one lmao) going to tell Cuddly, or are you going to make me do it?
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
Is anyone (I'm looking at you Mohdoo for one lmao) going to tell Cuddly, or are you going to make me do it?
Oh I'm sorry. I should have said this is my new alternate persona RealisticKitten. It's modelled after you so you should be proud.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 10:37 WombaT wrote: [quote] What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
Israel doesn‘t really want to annex the region, they don‘t want to have to care for the people living there and the security risk of having them in the country. That‘s my guess.
They keep the US happy by shelling the militants hiding among the civilians. How accurate they are is debatable, I don‘t think we get a lot of accurate news about it either.
The ICJ already declared that the occupation is illegal. For the genocide not to occur one might have to grant a lot of Palestinians asylum in other countries, but that‘s not very popular or feasible right now.
If you look at the map, it‘s stupid. Everything up to Gaza would be better off in the hands of Egypt.
EPT
