Russian invasion of Ukraine [Official Thread]

[iCenozoic]

16 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

This assumes that the war is cost-less to the other side. It isn't. There is a cost measured in billions per month in keeping the UKR economy afloat. Sanctions are also costing Western Europe.

At some point there'll be pressure on the UKRs to compromise.

If Russia wants to play that game of chicken, I suspect that NATO and other non-NATO western leaning nations would happily oblige. Especially given how effective the Ukraine army has been in their resistance.

Edited April 18 by iCenozoic

[Haji 2003]

4 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

If Russia wants to play that game of chicken, I suspect that NATO and other non-NATO western leaning nations would happily oblige.

The Iranians, Cubans and North Koreans have been playing that game for a few decades now. The difference is that sanctioning Russia comes with much more economic pain.

Also as I have argued earlier I think this is a bigger game about cutting down to size a potential Chinese ally in any conflict with that country.

But you come to a point where this conflict actually strengthens China's hand i.e. currently the only buyers for Russian natural resources are Chinese.

[iCenozoic]

14 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

The Iranians, Cubans and North Koreans have been playing that game for a few decades now. The difference is that sanctioning Russia comes with much more economic pain.

Also as I have argued earlier I think this is a bigger game about cutting down to size a potential Chinese ally in any conflict with that country.

But you come to a point where this conflict actually strengthens China's hand i.e. currently the only buyers for Russian natural resources are Chinese.

None of the nations mentioned above are actively invading their neighbor. So, I don't think they are playing the same game.

[Haji 2003]

5 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

None of the nations mentioned above are actively invading their neighbor. So, I don't think they are playing the same game.

I was referring to the fact that sanctioned countries can put up with the pain for a long time.

[iCenozoic]

Just now, Haji 2003 said:

I was referring to the fact that sanctioned countries can put up with the pain for a long time.

Ok. Well, I'm talking about the war. 

Maybe I can rewind a bit to my prior post.

[iCenozoic]

 

What I'm thinking is, Russia attempted to kill the Ukraine central government and has killed and is actively killing members of it's local government, and of course it's people with it. Russia of course is also leveling and destroying cities and towns, and in some instances, massacring people of those towns along the way.

So that means that, unless Russia destroys the Ukraine government, which it tried to do but appears to have not succeeded, until they destroy the central government, either Russia will have to leave the country, or of course enter a years long war that will cost it too much for its already fragile economy to handle.

and it's true that Ukraines economy is tanking as well. But Ukraine in certain regards doesn't really have a choice but to fight. Otherwise they'd be letting tyranny "win". And in many cases they'd just be killed if they surrendered anyway.

And I don't expect the west to back down because if the west didn't make an effort to stop Russia, Russia wouldn't stop. Next they'd hit other Baltic states. Maybe Latvia, Maybe Poland, maybe Estonia. Maybe they'd move back in into Finland, maybe they'd even destroy turkey, etc. (Assuming western nations didn't respond to Russia's activities). Anyone Putin allegedly felt "threatened" by, that simultaneously held strategically positioned land with natural resources, would be in danger. And so I don't think the west is going to back down.

Edited April 18 by iCenozoic

[Haji 2003]

48 minutes ago, iCenozoic said:

Ok. Well, I'm talking about the war. 

They are two sides of the same coin. How long can the two sides carry on fighting. Part of the answer lies in the slogging match and both sides seemed to be prepared to take the human casualties.

So the issue turns to economic cost. I am arguing that countries like Russia can bear this for some time. How long well-off Europeans are willing to take the pain, I am not so sure.

If this drags on till winter, it could become interesting because that's when expensive natural gas will really begin to bite the Germans.

[iCenozoic]

6 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

They are two sides of the same coin. How long can the two sides carry on fighting. Part of the answer lies in the slogging match and both sides seemed to be prepared to take the human casualties.

So the issue turns to economic cost. I am arguing that countries like Russia can bear this for some time. How long well-off Europeans are willing to take the pain, I am not so sure.

If this drags on till winter, it could become interesting because that's when expensive natural gas will really begin to bite the Germans.

I suspect that the EU is much better suited for this situation than Russia is. But I suppose we will see!

[Haji 2003]

There is some bad language (in translation). But the tweet deals with atrocities committed by the Azov.

Noteworthy because the international news media appear not to cover anything bad done by the Azov, which for a fascist organisation would be unusual.

https://twitter.com/EllyB53292373/status/1516054125250760706

 

[Haji 2003]

13 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

I suspect that the EU is much better suited for this situation than Russia is. But I suppose we will see!

The UK has been very aggressive in its support for the UKR's and then there is this:
 

Quote

Energy chiefs have warned of a “truly horrific” spike in household bills in the autumn that could leave up to 40 per cent of households in Britain in fuel poverty unless the government offers further help.

https://www.ft.com/content/207d744b-07d9-478b-a6d5-b40982c23bc7

Let's see whether Britain or Russia blinks first.

[Son of Placid]

Life in Russia under sanctions.

 

[Northwest]

On 4/18/2022 at 7:40 PM, iCenozoic said:

And I don't expect the west to back down because if the west didn't make an effort to stop Russia, Russia wouldn't stop. Next they'd hit other Baltic states. Maybe Latvia, Maybe Poland, maybe Estonia. Maybe they'd move back in into Finland, maybe they'd even destroy Turkey, etc. (Assuming western nations didn't respond to Russia's activities). Anyone Putin allegedly felt "threatened" by, that simultaneously held strategically positioned land with natural resources, would be in danger. And so I don't think the west is going to back down.

@iCenozoic

The Baltic states, Poland, and/or Finland are largely devoid of strategic natural resources that would be of benefit to Russia. (Russia already has plenty of trees, for instance.) Those locations are only valuable as transit nodes and/or bases for Western outposts on Russia’s border(s).

Your line of reasoning is the same specious that the U.S. has used to get involved in foreign conflicts: that if the U.S. does not act, then its foes will attack closer to home, seize key resources, assail vital allies, etc. It is especially absurd if you already believe that Russia is trapped in Ukraine and under immense Western pressure.

Why would Russia worsen her own situation by directly attacking other neighbouring states, especially actual NATO members such as the Baltic states and/or Poland?

As far as Turkey is concerned, Erdoğan and Putin are currently on better terms than ever before, so a renewed Russo–Turkish conflict would benefit the collective West (and its ally Ukraine) far more than either party.

Currently the West has more of an incentive to stage a false-flag incident that might trigger NATO’s Article V and decisively alter the geopolitical calculation in favour of Ukraine.

This doesn’t mean that the West would do so, of course, but strategically it has more of a motive than Russia does, given that the latter is in a relatively poor (disadvantaged) economic and political position.

Russia did attack and invade Georgia in 2008, and succeeded in obtaining her objectives there, but did not follow up by directly attacking a NATO member. This remains the case more than a decade later.

It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that Russia would attack the West if the latter did nothing to aid Ukraine. Such an argument could easily lead to a wider war that sane circles on either side do not want.

It’s the same kind of “Munich argument” that was used to attack Iraq and countless other targets: by comparing the target to Hitler and inaction to Chamberlain’s infamous “appeasement“ of 1938.

In fact, Netanyahu uses this kind of reasoning all the time to justify a preemptive Western/Israeli attack on Iran, simply because Iran “might” seek nuclear weapons and “might” use them vs. Western/Israeli targets.

Russia had the past eight years to occupy Kiev and destroy Ukraine, but did not undertake a large-scale military action prior to February 2022. This belies the claim that Russia is solely motivated by an aggressive calculus.

None of this means that Putin is entirely innocent or a likeable figure, but it also disproves some of the more sensational Western claims that are being widely disseminated by the mainstream media.

[Northwest]

@iCenozoic

To follow up:

1) Why would Russia risk World War III by attacking NATO members such as Poland, the Baltic states, and/or Turkey?

2) Given Russia’s disadvantaged economic and political position, why would she take such a risk, given the costs?

3) Sure, Ukrainians are suffering in part from Russia’s invasion, but how are Ukrainians more important than, say, any other demographic that is also suffering from the effects of war?

4) Do we simply trust the “experts” in the media and so on who are telling us the same narrative about Russia simply because they are “experts” and have formed a “consensus” about what the West should do?

5) Foreign policy is not based on moralistic posturing about humanitarian concerns, but about strategic interests. To claim that the West is concerned about Ukraine for moral reasons is as nonsensical as claiming that Russia is.

[Northwest]

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

Its military having nuclear weapons and being 10x the size of Ukraine, it thought it could simply have its way with the Ukraine government.

@iCenozoic

The important thing to realise is that Russia’s strategy vs. Ukraine clearly did not work, despite overblown Western hysteria about Russia’s alleged “capabilities.” Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and yet the Western MSM constantly predicted the fall of Kiev, which did not happen. Had Putin had the will and means he would have occupied Kiev back in 2014 but did not do so. So maybe a) Russia is a lot weaker than the West asserts or b) Putin is less decisive than the West claims or c) both. Once again the Western “experts” were wrong about Putin’s alleged capabilities, which have always been more limited than either the pro- or anti-Russia side avers.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

No one forced Putin to attack Ukraine. This is the last thing that NATO nations wanted.

What about the arms manufacturers and bankers who benefit from a long war, regardless of which side “wins”?

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

Same with the annexing of Crimea, and the invasion of Georgia as well. If Putin had his way, he would have the governments of many other Baltic states destroyed as well.

So far I have seen very little evidence that Russia has had ambitions beyond its “near abroad.” Attacking NATO members such as the Baltic states would be a non-starter, given that such an action would trigger Article V. But then again, maybe some arms manufacturers and international financiers would be quite happy with such an outcome, given that it would provide the impetus for a large-scale conflict in which they (not Russia or the West) would be the only winners.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

But perhaps you think that NATO should simply stand by and let him destroy them all?

Personally, I think that the world could do with fewer globalist institutions and more localist solutions. NATO is, at the end of the day, just another globalist, elitist organisation that does not address the needs of its members, much less solve pressing global issues. The Russian boogeyman, like any other threat, whether real or imagined, serves as a convenient ideological straitjacket that prevents lucrative yet ineffectual institutions, “dead weight,” from being reformed or replaced. NATO doesn’t “protect” average communities, but it does enrich parasitic oligarchies. So does the regime in Russia. Standing armies and police should be replaced with local militia and voluntary security. The current globalist regime is coercive and compulsory and wasteful.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

Or better yet, perhaps you think the US should enter nuclear warfare with Russia to stop them?

A lot of NATO oligarchs are more or less arguing for moves that would make such an outcome all but inevitable. We’re already close...

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

But of course this would mean doomsday for every other country on earth given the magnitude and power of their collective nuclear arsenals.

I don’t think most Westerners, be they elites or commoners, care about anything other than material, short-term gratification.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

Only on shiachat

Oh, really?

What about all the other “alternative” sources, credible or not, that criticise NATO’s activities on Russia’s borders?

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

could people watch a global superpower steamroll a sovereign nation, and act as if it's Germanys fault or Frances Fault, or The USs fault or Canada's Fault or Turkeys fault, or Englands fault or Poland's fault etc. Yet none of these nations or any other NATO nations were the ones who gathered 200,000 soldiers on Ukraines borders and massacred Ukraines civilians.

Global superpowers have always acted as hegemonic, whether in their neighbouring regions or farther afield. The U.S. has been the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere since the late nineteenth century and has enforced its will via economic and military coercion. Unlike Russia, the U.S. has also “steamrolled” sovereign powers outside its hemisphere, including Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Geopolitics is no place for hypocritical sentimentality. All superpowers have acted as killers. The U.S. just happens to be one of the biggest.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

Maybe Ukrainians, particularly those of the bombed maternity clinic or those massacred in bucha, should be reminded that they aren't actually oppressed martyrs at all contrary to what they believe, but somehow they actually chose their own fate by wanting closer friendships with the EU, including military security for their sovereignty against a militarily aggressive neighbor that has no interest in the value of their lives. How silly of them to think that they weren't guilty of their own oppression merely by seeking to be free.

How is the EU necessarily a “freer” institution than a Russian one? Spheres of influence are based on globalism. NATO members are not “free” to leave at their discretion, nor are EU members granted a say over the policies that emanate from Brussels. Just like the U.K. post Brexit, they can “check out” at any moment, but they cannot disentangle themselves from the institutional and financial fetters that bind them to Brussels. EU/NATO members such as Hungary and Poland have no say over their domestic policies; Brussels and D.C. set the standards. Even such a central, dominant, and privileged EU/NATO satrap as Germany has no say in rejecting EU policies on migration or expelling NATO bases from its territory.

On 4/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, iCenozoic said:

What's interesting about your map of Russia above is that in reality it is Ukraine that is currently being divided by Russia, not Russia being divided by Ukraine. 

Russian civilisation literally originated in Kiev and in turn derives from Byzantium via Ukraine and later Moscow (Muscovy). The Rus’ of Kiev literally founded the first Russian state in Ukraine. In Russian the Ukraine is known as the “borderland” but has always been regarded as a central component of Russian (Orthodox) civilisation. Even mainstream sources acknowledge the legacy of the historical Rus’ in Kiev. Only the western Ukraine historically fell under Latinate (Catholic) sway vis-à-vis the Habsburg monarchy and its Polish clients. So yes, part of Ukraine certainly belongs to the west, but only about a third (Galicia), while the rest arguably has always been part of or leaned strongly toward Russia (including Kiev and Donbas’). Splitting Ukraine into a NATO-protected, EU-aligned Galicia (Lviv) and a Russian-dominated Kiev + Donbas’ + Crimea makes a lot of historical sense. I don’t see why Zelensky and Putin can’t be forced to agree to such a compromise.

[Traveller_]

Salam everyone
quite a few useful posts about the discussion here, what sources do you recommend to better follow the war's events?
Only one or two Twitter accounts are not spouting ridiculous nonsense about the war and mainstream media is blatantly lying. 

[Haji 2003]

Mission creep

And mission creep never ends well

Quote

“This is an administration that was very hesitant in the not too distant past to provide equipment that would give the Ukrainians a capability that could be provocative to the Russians,” said Ian Brzezinski, who headed Nato policy at the Pentagon during the Bush administration and is now at the Atlantic Council.

https://www.ft.com/content/1d902798-8e8d-46f6-8c69-cf25dfd235d4

[iCenozoic]

https://youtu.be/T6XyfoZ5jHA

An analysis of the Lithuanian military, Russia's potential future choice of a country to invade.

Edited April 23 by iCenozoic

[Northwest]

2 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

https://youtu.be/T6XyfoZ5jHA

An analysis of the Lithuanian military, Russia's potential future choice of a country to invade.

@iCenozoic

^ You ignored my previous points above and chose to continue disseminating irresponsible and improbable “what-ifs” involving Russia attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania. Russia failed in its objectives in Ukraine (the Ukrainian military is far from disarmed, Kiev was not taken, and so on) and is already suing for peace, yet is willing to further harm itself by actually triggering NATO Article V? Under current circumstances Russia will not attack Lithuania unless it is “triggered” or forced by some external actor to do so. Doing otherwise would be suicidal, given Russia’s precarious economic and military situation. But some NATO oligarchs evidently want Russia to attack or be seen as attacking a NATO member so that the banking elite can use a nuclear war to reduce the Earth’s population to a more “sustainable” level (of course, neither Russia nor the West would be the “winners” in this eventuality).

[Northwest]

Some thoughts that I had to relieve myself of:

Westerners have long been prone to nationalistic, xenophobic jingoism and a welfarist entitlement mentality, false “conservative” fronts whining about “personal responsibility/initiative” notwithstanding. Blaming foreigners is easier than working harder and being honest. The very first recourse of the collective West: if you want something for free, simply steal it from harder-working countries such as Russia, and then blame the victim. After all, the Western bankers can buy off the masses with paper money, and no one seriously moves to endanger their material “benefactors.”

Most Westerners are either a) degenerate liberals or b) welfarist “CONservatives” who never assume individual or collective responsibility for their wilful ignorance, because doing so would actually invoke real-world consequences that would affect their petty status within the status quo. Inside many Westerners are little whining Nazi freeloaders who want wealth without effort or wisdom, simply because everything in the West revolves around the individual rather than the collective (community, nation, etc.). The system is designed to breed these kinds of individualists, and we see the results.

The global financial elite needs to fulfil its “quota” for depopulation in accordance with Agenda 2030, so it is doing everything in its power to trigger a nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia, while publicly and disingenuously avowing that it is doing everything to prevent such a conflict (and blaming only one side, Russia, for “starting” it). In other words, we the bankers do not really want a nuclear war, but if one breaks out, Russia will be solely responsible, just as Germany was scapegoated for two financier-caused world wars. Bankers always “pass the buck” to everyone else!

Putin is being constrained by the international bankers from actually making a serious effort to stop NATO’s preprogrammed suicide-by-nuke. In fact, one scenario postulates that he is “in” on the entire scheme and will flee with his fellow oligarchs to an underground shelter in the Southern Hemisphere, while abandoning Russia to the mercies of NATO’s nuclear arsenal. In other words, Putin may really be part of the banking elite, explaining why he didn’t make any serious moves to defeat Ukraine in 2014 and still refrains from using his full forces. Anyway, I have never been an especial admirer of Putin’s.

Edited April 23 by Northwest

[iCenozoic]

https://youtu.be/ikW0PfXcqXM

 

More russians being oppressed by Nazis in Moldova? The story develops. Moldova seeks eu membership (save us Germany*). Of course Russia would have a much easier time toppling the Moldovan central government over Ukraines.

Edited April 24 by iCenozoic

[Ashvazdanghe]

'I want to see the sun,' begs child in Mariupol steel works

Women and children sheltering in a giant steel works in Mariupol that is the last holdout of Ukrainian defenders of the southern port city, said in a video released on Saturday they are desperate to get out and are running out of food.

Afghan Voice Agency (AVA) – Reuters, The video was released by the Azov battalion, which was set up by pro-Ukrainian nationalists in 2014, later incorporated as a regiment in Ukraine's national guard and has played a prominent role in the defense of Mariupol.

Quote

Reuters could not independently verify where or when the video was shot. Somebody speaking in the video mentions that the date is April 21.

The video shows soldiers bringing food for civilians who the battalion says are sheltering in the Azovstal complex.
A woman holding a toddler said people in the plant were running out of food, "We really want to go home," she said.

More than 1,000 civilians are in the plant along with troops defending it, according to Ukrainian authorities.

 

Quote

One unnamed boy in the video said he was desperate to get out after being in the plant for two months.
"I want to see the sun because in here it's dim, not like outside. When our houses are rebuilt we can live in peace. Let Ukraine win because Ukraine is our native home," he said.

 

Quote

The video showed women wearing uniforms with the Azovstal design, which Reuters verified, matched in file images.
One woman said she had been sheltering in the steel works since Feb. 27, just days after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine.

https://avapress.com/en/260673/-I-want-to-see-the-sun-begs-child-in-Mariupol-steel-works

[Haji 2003]

Russian sphere of influence extends to its borders only. US sphere extends to Solomon Islands

Quote

One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands

[Haji 2003]

On 4/19/2022 at 3:31 PM, Haji 2003 said:

Let's see whether Britain or Russia blinks first.

 

Well the rest of Europe seems to be blinking first:

Quote

Some of Europe’s largest energy companies are preparing to use a new payment system for Russian gas demanded by the Kremlin, which critics say will undercut EU sanctions, threaten the bloc’s unity and deliver billions in cash to Russia’s economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/5c4ecf3f-67c9-4ae6-b1a2-d70f2ef7ac05

 

Sensible Europeans.

At the same time I think it is crazy that they were that reliant on Russian gas in the first place, there should have been more diversity in supply.

[Note I own shares in African companies who can supply gas to Europe].

[Haji 2003]

Global perspective and not just a Western one

 

 

https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/1520651356264177664

 

[123SlaveOfAllah]

 

[Haji 2003]

Pope blames NATO

Quote

ROME⁠—Pope Francis said the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” may have led to the invasion of Ukraine and that he didn't know whether other countries should supply Ukraine with more arms.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-03/card/pope-says-nato-may-have-provoked-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-E7VAcqXGK8xNoHxJPQFs

[Haji 2003]

Lula says Ukraine and Russia equally to blame

Quote

 

Brazilian presidential frontrunner Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, bear equal responsibility for the war in Ukraine, putting the leftist icon at odds with western powers.

Portraying himself as a bridge-builder, he maintained friendly ties with counterparts as disparate as George W Bush of the US and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/04/brazil-lula-zelenskiy-blame-war

[Haji 2003]

 

[Haji 2003]

Ukrainian media

Quote

Johnson’s position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to "press him."

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

Looks like the West is willing to fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian.

[iCenozoic]

On 5/8/2022 at 6:19 AM, Haji 2003 said:

Ukrainian media

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/

Looks like the West is willing to fight the Russians down to the last Ukrainian.

What's weird about this phrase is that, really it's Ukraine fighting down to the last Ukrainian. I mean really, they don't have an alternative. 

Do you think Ukraine should just let Russia show up and kill them without trying to fight back?

Does anyone actually think that letting Russia massacre civilians and slaughter government officials is an ok thing to let them do? It's not really the west fighting, it's Ukrainians fighting to live. And many in Ukraine really don't have a choice, lest they simply want to roll over and be killed.

Was it France that won independence from great Britain in 1776? No, those were American soldiers fighting to live, albeit with resources provided by France.

Given the success that Ukraine has had, it would be more appropriate to suggest that perhaps Putin is willing to fight to the last Russian soldier. Because Putin actually has the power to command an invasion and to end it as well. Unlike Ukraine in this war.

Edited May 10 by iCenozoic

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

Does anyone actually think that letting Russia massacre civilians and slaughter government officials is an ok thing to let them do? It's not really the west fighting, it's Ukrainians fighting to live. And many in Ukraine really don't have a choice, lest they simply want to roll over and be killed.

Hi definitely  no  anyway it's clear that Ukraine is fighting  as proxy of west especially  America  which it's possible  that both sides will fight to their last soldiers  which best option  for both of them  is making a  peace treaty between  themselves  which everytime Ukraine  has refused to talk about peace in hope of receiving western support  especially from America .

[Haji 2003]

Reconstructing Ukraine

Financial Times story about Ukraine has the following about Iraq:
 

Quote

Some $220bn was spent on the reconstruction of Iraq between 2003 and 2014 following the US-led invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The biggest contributions came from Iraq’s government followed by the US, which spent $60bn, according to the World Bank. Yet a 2019 report from the Bank found that, based on interviews with government agencies, “the impact of reconstruction remains disappointingly obscure considering the resources committed” and was undermined by widespread corruption.

https://www.ft.com/content/179501fa-2bae-481b-bff4-54933eb74459#comments-anchor

 

Not a surprise to be honest.

If Ukrainians were under the misapprehension that they were fighting for themselves, they have news coming. If they get their country back it will be minus the billions the West will extract in 'reconstruction'.

[iCenozoic]

4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi definitely  no  anyway it's clear that Ukraine is fighting  as proxy of west especially  America  which it's possible  that both sides will fight to their last soldiers  which best option  for both of them  is making a  peace treaty between  themselves  which everytime Ukraine  has refused to talk about peace in hope of receiving western support  especially from America .

Never said there wasn't a proxy war unfolding. I'm simply saying that it's Ukrainians that are fighting for Ukraine. Those aren't french soldiers out there in the front lines. They're ukranians.

Like I said before, it wasn't the French who won independence from Britain in 1776. Americans fought that war themselves, though the French provided weapons and resources to the Americans in a proxy war against the British. It is now celebrated in our independence day nearly 300 years later because it was our war and Americans are the ones who did the fighting. And today, Ukranians are the ones doing the fighting, and it's their war.

And remember, Russia invaded Ukraine. If Russia really wanted to talk about peace, they wouldn't have invaded to begin with. They didn't amass 200,000 armed Russian soldiers just to make peace talks. They came to kill. You speak as if Russian soldiers are somehow trapped in Ukraine, begging Ukraine to agree to a peace deal that Ukraine irrationally refuses so that it can receive more western weapons. That's called twisting reality.

The reality is that Russia is the one who has the power to end the war, just as Russia started it. Whereas with Ukraine, being the invaded nation, for many they only had but a few choices, fight, die, or otherwise become enslaved (if Russia let them live at all). Hence why the Ukranians are indeed fighting for themselves, lest many simply be killed and/or imprisoned by Putins army. Or perhaps they'd simply be massacred like those at bucha.

So the question is not if the west will fight to the last ukranian, because many in Ukraine have no choice but to fight for their own freedom and life. Rather, the question ought to be, will Putin fight down to the last Russian invader? Because he has power and choice to withdraw and to end it at any time. But of course, he is a prideful man, and so we must ask, if Putin will fight down to the last Russian soldier.

Edited May 11 by iCenozoic

[Haji 2003]

18 hours ago, iCenozoic said:

What's weird about this phrase is that, really it's Ukraine fighting down to the last Ukrainian. I mean really, they don't have an alternative. 

IIRC the original issue was membership of NATO and the EU.

Avoiding the war

They could have acceded to Russia's demands or the EU and NATO could have done. Turkey has been trying for EU membership for decades, it's not as if just because a country wants to join they must.

Preparing for war

The speed with which NATO has helped Ukraine, that sanctions across multiple countries have been enacted, and the media fallen full square behind Ukraine, tells me that this war was planned for by the West.

You don't just start providing the intel to kill the other side's generals on a whim.

After the war

As I pointed out above, this war is about soclalising losses (Ukrainian military and civilian dead) and privatising gains - as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. There'll be a lot of money to be made and ordinary Ukrainians will be at the back of the queue.

[Guest Guest 123]

Salaam everyone.

I am new to ShiaChat and am curious as to how we should view this war between Ukraine and Russia from a religious perspective. Neither country has a large Muslim population and it is mainly Non-Muslims fighting Non-Muslims. From what it appears like to me is that the Russians are the obvious aggressors and wrongdoers although I have little knowledge of European history or politics. There is no doubt that the massacres in Bucha are absolutely atrocious and no one can deny that Russia brutally murdered unarmed civilians including women and children who, though not Muslims, are human beings just like me and you. I am kind of confused and at the same time appalled by the whole situation and would appreciate if someone could shed some light on this for me about which side is right or if it's neither.