I mean it’s literally what happened. It implies a bit of a rosy anthromorphization of the many varied and impersonal security interests that lead a nation-state to war, sure, but factually speaking, that’s how it went down.
This one has some actual credibility to it; although I don’t agree with the summary it at least seems plausible. Can you send me some arguments I can read for why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution? What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
the United States sent its NATO proxy army eastward
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
giving weapons to Ukraine to fight an ethnic war against its Russian-speaking population
Around how many literal casualties were there in this war? How many Russian-speaking Ukrainians killed or wounded by NATO weapons (pre-Russian-invasion, if you’re going to argue that the Russian’s special operation was in defense of Ukrainians)?
turn Russia’s Crimean naval base into a NATO fortress
Can you tell me more about the planned fortress? Where is the base or bases planned to be built, and where can I read more about the timelines or other plans?
This Croesus-level ambition aimed at drawing Russia into combat
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
depleting its ability to defend itself, wrecking its economy in the process and destroying its ability to provide military support to China and other countries targeted for seeking self-dependency as an alternative to U.S. hegemony.
I’d agree with this part, yes. I’m still lost as to why it’s the US’s fault that it happened.
After eight years of provocation, a new military attack on Russian-speaking Ukrainians was conspicuously prepared, ready to drive toward the Russian border in February 2022.
Can you elaborate on the provocation? Did Ukraine, for example, annex any territory from the Russian Federation, or bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border? If they had done either of those things, what would you say a reasonable response from Russia would have been?
Russia protected its fellow Russian-speakers from further ethnic violence by mounting its own Special Military Operation.
How many people injured in this ethnic violence? What was the aim of the special military operation – removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory? I’m still trying to get a sense of what is your assertion of what the goals and motives were on the Russian side.
why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution?
A revolution involves a change in the mode of production. This was a coup with a change of government, regardless of its legitimacy.
What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
The issue at hand is whether NATO had a role in it. The statistics are by-the-by.
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
Nobody is denying that Russia has troops in Ukraine, and I doubt anyone is denying that it gave military support in Eastern Ukraine before the invasion. The question, again, is whether NATO was involved. The two are not mutually exclusive.
planned fortress
I doubt very much that this is literal language. Does it change the meaning if it was imagery, instead?
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
It’s in the suggestion that Ukraine could join NATO, which lead to putting NATO nukes within the ‘safe zone’ of Russia’s nuclear program. That is, NATO could nuke Russia before Russia could retaliate.
Can you elaborate on the provocation?
Shelling ethnic Russians. See links above.
Did Ukraine, for example, … bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border?
Within Ukraine, the parts inhabited by majority ethnic Russians. See links above.
How many people injured in this ethnic violence?
See links above. Minimum 10,000, likely over 14,000 deaths. Tens of thousands injured. Millions displaced.
What was the aim of the special military operation – removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory?
If you believe Russia, demilitarisation of and denazification within Ukraine, to prevent the indefinite targeting of ethnic Russians. If you believe NATO? Who the fuck knows; they change their interpretation every week.
I’m about to head out of town for a while, so I don’t really have time right now to talk about all your questions. But here’s a quick overview. It’s is a fairly old article from just before the war, but I thought it was a pretty good overview of how we got here. There’s a great deal of citations, and I suggest you fact check them for yourself.
This is fascinating. Thank you for sending me this. It doesn’t change most of the attitudes and conclusions I’ve been stating in this thread; I would point to two excerpts from this article as reasons why:
It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s been embroiled in a mini–civil war since Maidan. After Putin moved to secure the Crimean naval base from NATO control, using the Russian military presence and a dubious referendum to illegally annex the majority-Russian region shortly after Yanukovych’s exit, pro-Russian separatists began mobilizing in the country’s east, first into protest, then into armed groups. After the interim government sent armed forces to put down the rebellion, Moscow sent its own troops in, and the entire region has been a deadly powder keg ever since.
Both of these seem like very accurate and evenhanded summaries to me. Things that have been said to me elsewhere in this thread – that Yanukovych’s removal was a Western coup, and that Ukraine’s relationship with ethnic Russians in the east could be described as “pogroms” – seem very inaccurate to me, and I would actually point to this article’s summary of those situations as a pretty good description of what the honest truth is.
If you’re sending me this to poke a hole in the “Ukraine good, Russia bad, protestors good, Yanukovych bad” narrative, then I support you in that endeavor. The real actual facts are important whether or not they support your or my ideology. I’m guessing that I’m getting such a high ratio of downvotes to responding messages because people assume I’m some kind of anti-Communist stooge… I assure you I am not an anti-left or universally-pro-US-government person.
It is super weird to me to see people who oppose the very real violence and imperialism that the US government engages in, who at the same time support violence and imperialism from Russia or China. From me in my point of view, as a person who’s generally leftist and generally anti-US-imperialism, it makes no sense. That’s why I want to have this long conversation about it and see if maybe there’s something I’m missing, but nothing I’ve seen so far has made any inroads as far as convincing me that there is. But, that being said, this article is showing me some sides to the whole equation I wasn’t aware of before. So, thank you.
Also… Mark Ames is still around and still doing journalism in Russia? How is that possible? Is this real life?
Glad you read it! I’m sitting at the airport right now, so I’m going to hope someone else talks about it further with you. There’s plenty of reasonable people here. I want to clarify first though that I think most (all?) people here are not big fans of modern Russia or the war. I think the best result for all involved at this point is a swift Russian victory, but the best result would have been NATO minding its own business or working to broker peace instead of instigating.
I mean it’s literally what happened. It implies a bit of a rosy anthromorphization of the many varied and impersonal security interests that lead a nation-state to war, sure, but factually speaking, that’s how it went down.
So, help me understand what literally happened.
This one has some actual credibility to it; although I don’t agree with the summary it at least seems plausible. Can you send me some arguments I can read for why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution? What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
Around how many literal casualties were there in this war? How many Russian-speaking Ukrainians killed or wounded by NATO weapons (pre-Russian-invasion, if you’re going to argue that the Russian’s special operation was in defense of Ukrainians)?
Can you tell me more about the planned fortress? Where is the base or bases planned to be built, and where can I read more about the timelines or other plans?
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
I’d agree with this part, yes. I’m still lost as to why it’s the US’s fault that it happened.
Can you elaborate on the provocation? Did Ukraine, for example, annex any territory from the Russian Federation, or bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border? If they had done either of those things, what would you say a reasonable response from Russia would have been?
How many people injured in this ethnic violence? What was the aim of the special military operation – removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory? I’m still trying to get a sense of what is your assertion of what the goals and motives were on the Russian side.
im not sure if you’re posting in willful ignorance or trolling, but the result is about the same either way
A revolution involves a change in the mode of production. This was a coup with a change of government, regardless of its legitimacy.
The issue at hand is whether NATO had a role in it. The statistics are by-the-by.
Nobody is denying that Russia has troops in Ukraine, and I doubt anyone is denying that it gave military support in Eastern Ukraine before the invasion. The question, again, is whether NATO was involved. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I doubt very much that this is literal language. Does it change the meaning if it was imagery, instead?
It’s in the suggestion that Ukraine could join NATO, which lead to putting NATO nukes within the ‘safe zone’ of Russia’s nuclear program. That is, NATO could nuke Russia before Russia could retaliate.
Shelling ethnic Russians. See links above.
Within Ukraine, the parts inhabited by majority ethnic Russians. See links above.
See links above. Minimum 10,000, likely over 14,000 deaths. Tens of thousands injured. Millions displaced.
If you believe Russia, demilitarisation of and denazification within Ukraine, to prevent the indefinite targeting of ethnic Russians. If you believe NATO? Who the fuck knows; they change their interpretation every week.
I’m about to head out of town for a while, so I don’t really have time right now to talk about all your questions. But here’s a quick overview. It’s is a fairly old article from just before the war, but I thought it was a pretty good overview of how we got here. There’s a great deal of citations, and I suggest you fact check them for yourself.
This is fascinating. Thank you for sending me this. It doesn’t change most of the attitudes and conclusions I’ve been stating in this thread; I would point to two excerpts from this article as reasons why:
Both of these seem like very accurate and evenhanded summaries to me. Things that have been said to me elsewhere in this thread – that Yanukovych’s removal was a Western coup, and that Ukraine’s relationship with ethnic Russians in the east could be described as “pogroms” – seem very inaccurate to me, and I would actually point to this article’s summary of those situations as a pretty good description of what the honest truth is.
If you’re sending me this to poke a hole in the “Ukraine good, Russia bad, protestors good, Yanukovych bad” narrative, then I support you in that endeavor. The real actual facts are important whether or not they support your or my ideology. I’m guessing that I’m getting such a high ratio of downvotes to responding messages because people assume I’m some kind of anti-Communist stooge… I assure you I am not an anti-left or universally-pro-US-government person.
It is super weird to me to see people who oppose the very real violence and imperialism that the US government engages in, who at the same time support violence and imperialism from Russia or China. From me in my point of view, as a person who’s generally leftist and generally anti-US-imperialism, it makes no sense. That’s why I want to have this long conversation about it and see if maybe there’s something I’m missing, but nothing I’ve seen so far has made any inroads as far as convincing me that there is. But, that being said, this article is showing me some sides to the whole equation I wasn’t aware of before. So, thank you.
Also… Mark Ames is still around and still doing journalism in Russia? How is that possible? Is this real life?
I’d challenge you to find a single example of Chinese (PRC) imperialism, even with a simplistic definition like “invading other countries”
Glad you read it! I’m sitting at the airport right now, so I’m going to hope someone else talks about it further with you. There’s plenty of reasonable people here. I want to clarify first though that I think most (all?) people here are not big fans of modern Russia or the war. I think the best result for all involved at this point is a swift Russian victory, but the best result would have been NATO minding its own business or working to broker peace instead of instigating.