Errr why not?
Maybe they could become some sort of independent buffer state, maybe they become Belarus. Maybe they get invaded anyway. I don’t know.
Maybe his statements are more believable when they are made when he’s not actively at war.
Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and took Crimea.
Putin invaded Donbas and has been funding the rebels there for years.
Thinking Putin would invade Ukraine again is not unfalsifiable, we literally have evidence.
1 Like
I’m so confused by the translation of that article
Two out of three of those sound really bad, the third is meh. Maybe that’s why Ukraine decided to fight a war.
Yeah there seem to be real mixed-messages on that. UKR is saying he was killed on a special mission. But the initial reporting seems to say he was detained for being a spy, then killed when he tried to escape.
We will add: earlier in the day the information on Kireev’s death was spread by the people’s deputy Alexander Dubinsky. He reminded that the banker was once a suspect in treason.
We should disbelieve Putin on everything, therefore we can safely ignore any nuclear threats he might make.
1 Like
Keed is taking it for granted that the Ukrainian people/government accept their status as a pawn of Russia if not for those pesky Americans.
In a world where the US tells Ukrainians to fuck off but Ukraine insists on moving forward as a democracy that isn’t controlled by Russia…what happens? War.
Blaming the US is blaming Ukraine.
2 Likes
I’m not saying that. I’m saying I don’t think any of us are qualified to say that when Putin says he fears NATO and that NATO expansion is a provocation - that is a lie and just an excuse to attack Ukraine but his statements about rebuilding the Russian empire are not. He’s made both of these statements consistently - both about Ukraine and in general.
They’re exclusive because you say we’re not responsible for Russia’s actions, and then say we are responsible for Russia’s actions.
It’s pretty patronizing to claim that you know better than the Ukrainians what’s good for them. They seem quite willing to pay costs to escape Russia’s subjugation and had few illusions about what those might be.
1 Like
He fears NATO because it means he can’t stop a democracy next door from eroding his powers, by influencing people within his own country.
He does not fear an invasion from NATO.
I just don’t see how this could be any more obvious.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Actions that the Russians predictably find provocative increase the chance of war. We took those provocative actions and are responsible for them.
I have no idea how true this is or the extent that Ukrainians knew what their government was doing by accepting US weapons and military training.
Sure. Maybe I’m missing something then because I thought that the position here was that NATO expansion had nothing to do with him invading Ukraine - that all the talk about NATO was just a lie and not the reason, which was instead to reform the Russian empire?
Yeah that’s the part they pretty much leave unsaid. Like if the West had actively shunned Ukraine, then maybe they would have taken their fate easier and be a happy vassal state like Belarus.
When you primarily blame the West for the current situation, you’re specifically saying that Ukraine would be better off just rolling over and accepting whatever Russia does to them. But of course you don’t say that part out loud.
And of course if someone opposes that, well now they’re arguing on moral grounds, and that’s just not how superpowers roll.
And next year, after Russia is done wreaking Ukraine, their GDP will be 2000 or something. Belarus’ GDP will be on its way to 7000. Of course Ukraine would be better off in the EU and NATO if Russia would allow it. The point is Russia wouldn’t allow it.
They literally had an election with this as the central issue, between a pro-Western candidate and a pro-Putin candidate, and the pro-Western candidate won.
think we’d be well served by an origins thread