Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

There is a linguistic difference between Russian and Ukrainian. It's like the difference between Czech and Slovak or Serbian and Croatian. Distinct people with distinct languages but speakers of each can more or less understand each other. But people claiming that all Ukrainians are Russian speakers and by extension Russian are Kremlin propagandists and imperialists. Ukraine is Ukraine. It is not Little Russia.

This is correct. They are both languages descended from Old Slavonic, but they evolved very differently and have many different terms, loan words, expressions and so on. Ukrainian language is more closely related to Belarussian than it is Russian. And in fact, Ukrainian cyrillic has letters that don't exist in Russian cyrillic (ґ, є, і, ї) which is also why 'Hostomel' is pronounced 'Gostomel' by Russians, and why 'Luhansk' is pronounced 'Lugansk' by Russians, because they have no analogue to the Ukrainian h versus g. Г/Ґ are two different letters and different sounds in Ukrainian, but just gets reduced to 'g' by Russians. There are also a number of cultural, religious and ethnic differences between Russians and Ukrainians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ukraine is running out of resorts- including young men. Time for peace. Lives can be saved.

This has been a talking point that has started circulating from the vatnik social media sphere by Russian troll farms.

It signals a shift in the narrative in Russian propaganda from a few months ago, and certainly a huge shift from the beginning of the war. That means that Russia is increasingly feeling the strain of this unsuccessful war.

Sane Americans have been saying that for quite some time.

There is no reporting from that war. Only propaganda, from both sides.

The only reason this "negotiate to save Ukrainian lives" narrative is coming to the surface now, is because the Kremlin is starting to come to the realization that there's no real way for them to achieve their war goals.

Don't fall for the notion that it's some sort of good faith idea to end the war. The Russians just want to hurt support in the West for continuing aid to Ukraine.

They were negotiating a year ago in Istanbul and getting somewhere until Boris Johnson swooped in and slapped Zelensky's hand away.

Bullshit. They weren't getting anywhere and Johnson didn't derail anything. Zelensky didn't have anything like a mandate from his people for making territorial concessions to Russia and, in any case, Putin is and was utterly untrustworthy. Zelensky was aware that Russia wasn't negotiating in good faith and that Russia had been engaged in the execution and torture of civilians in Bucha, Irpin, Borodyanka and other northern towns.

There were no formalized territorial concessions on the table in Istanbul. Civilians die in every war and it in no way precludes a negotiated settlement.

On the Johnson/negotiations bit, I'll leave you with this:

Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

You're being obtuse. Probably deliberately. The implication of the earlier post was that maybe those who resided in Ukraine but whose native language was Russian were sympathetic to Russia prior to the war and maybe indifferent to whether Ukraine or Russia governed where they live. But now even those people won't embrace Russian domination.

[Anonymous]

Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

You're mixing up different posters. But it's indeed more relevant because even ethnic Russians in Ukraine have soured deeply against their cousins in the Russian Federation. As pointed out above, if you ask the average ethnic Russian in parts of Ukraine that have a lot of ethnic Russians, like Kharkiv or Zaporizhzhia what they think of about the Russian invasion you will get an earful of anger toward their Russian counterparts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

Maybe they didn't advise you of this at the St. Petersburg troll academy, but whataboutism and deflections are not actually "counterarguments."
They are rhetorical fallacies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

Because the topic is the Russia Ukraine conflict. Nothing in this entire thread is about American soldiers going to Ukraine to fight for freedom. Anne Applebaum has been a well respected essayist about Eastern and Central Europe for decades. If you don't care for her opinions, that's fine. If you don't care for US foreign policy in the Middle East, that's also fine. Not many people do. But in this context you are simply deflecting and engaging in whataboutism. It's boring and it's lazy. Save your thoughts about Bahrain for elsewhere. It'd be nice to keep this thread focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

DP. By that logic, does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?

What a clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

DP. Having read Ms. Applebaum's articles, the broad brush you paint is the only 'black and white' I see. Much of what she states / reports is after-the-fact. If you have a specific issue you'd like to argue, then cite fact - not opinion.

The argument that Russia is as bad as Al-Saud is not something to preen about either. Further arguing that if the U.S. is a 'passionate supporter' (not true, but using your own words to make a point) of one authoritarian regime then it should support all, is also not preen-worthy.

If you want a good counterargument, does that mean that the U.S. is free to arrest and put on trial reporters from Russia Today for reporting on the U.S.? Maybe China or Kazakstan should attack and reclaim parts of Russia that were seized back under Mongol rule? What's good for the Russian goose, should be good for everyone else, right?

The Russian military murders, rapes, pillages.. The Russian government and leaders steal, lie, assassinate rivals..

If you want to make a counterpoint, it helps to make one you can win?