Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Joszef Kiprich]

.No major wars have started under his presidency

Yemen rings a bell? And let's not forget his HUUUUGE achievement of the sudden departure out of Afghanistan. And that's just out the top of my head. And yes the latter happened under Biden but that was because of the massive brain of His Orangeness.

[Twdft]

The war shouldn't have happened, it was the result of failed diplomacy because of a few egoistic men in suit (and one comedian in cargo pants) that millions of poor Ukrainians who had no say had to suffer the consequences.

No the war happened because ruSSia decided to invade its sovereign neighbor. Yes it is that simple. ruSSia could have just not invaded, there was nothing that made an agression inevitable.

Are we not allowed to have different opinions? Having a different opinion about how the war should end does not make me a Russian troll.

You are regurgitating ruSSian propaganda.

[TrueNeutral]

Yemen rings a bell? And let's not forget his HUUUUGE achievement of the sudden departure out of Afghanistan. And that's just out the top of my head. And yes the latter happened under Biden but that was because of the massive brain of His Orangeness.

The war in Yemen started in 2014 before Trump was elected, but I know that Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in 2020 which I thought was an escalatory move and he deserves to be condemned for that.

Make no mistake, I do not like Trump. I think he is a narcissistic manbaby who can't get over losing to someone he saw as a "sleepy Joe". Joe Biden is objectively a better president than Trump, but when it comes to the Ukraine crisis, I believe Trump is more likely to put an end to the crisis than Joe Biden.

No the war happened because ruSSia decided to invade its sovereign neighbor. Yes it is that simple. ruSSia could have just not invaded, there was nothing that made an agression inevitable.



You are regurgitating ruSSian propaganda.

You're saying Russia decided to invade Ukraine for absolutely no reason? Not that having a reason makes it justifiable, it doesn't.
Well, let's agree to disagree on that then.

[Dontrike]

Make no mistake, I do not like Trump.

Have you tried not being a liar before telling the truth?

[Twdft]

You're saying Russia decided to invade Ukraine for absolutely no reason? Not that having a reason makes it justifiable, it doesn't.
Well, let's agree to disagree on that then.

Perfect wife beater logic you got there my dude "look what you made me do".

We already had your co-worker here for a couple years. Get a real job.

[Corvus]

I think someone failed to notice the whooping the Republicans just received in voting that took place despite polling predictions and also taking place in some red regions - holding out hope Trump saves his hero pootie is not a wise move.

[Voidism]

This is another irksome component of the "but why should we care about Ukraine?" crowd in the US.

Setting aide that... you know, it's morally correct to help them not be killed by invading Russian orks. Even on the most base, cynical level, sending a pittance of change to destabilize one of the US' largest geopolitical rivals whilst risking absolutely zero American lives is the bargain of a lifetime. It's like a proxy war, except the other side doesn't have a proxy that they're funding; they're just dying for it.


I mean I ultimately understand why there are people saying "stop aiding Ukraine" in the US; it's because they've been told to think that the spending going to Ukraine is responsible for inflation or gas prices or other nonsensical notions... and they've been told that by conservative politicians either drawing a check directly from the Russian government or who don't like all the good press Biden and the democrats are getting for aiding Ukraine.

I do actually think it is okay to question our support for Ukraine, and I do not believe it's necessarily because people are unthinking pawns who do as they are told - in fact, I think that assumption only worsens the situation. It is a reaction to attempts by "us" to dictate their thinking. We need to calm down and realize not everyone is fully on board or even driven by moral imperatives. The Biden administration has been somewhat ineffectual in clarifying this. Many Americans, from my experience, are not very aware of the world outside America, which is perfectly fine. I'm not suggesting another speech. Rather, a much broader approach involving various vectors and reiterations is needed. Hell, perhaps even many Republicans in Congress truly don't grasp the situation. Efforts should be made to foster bipartisan understanding.

It's crucial to articulate how this benefits them. One of the most significant failings of American politicians is their assumption that everyone shares their basic understanding and their refusal to explain further. This leads to diminishing trust in institutions. You might be surprised, but many people actually do not know about the hard "cynical" reasons.

Here's what I mean, things that many do not actually know:

The spending on Ukraine goes back into America's own industry to replace what they send, and much of the equipment sent is surplus or outdated. In fact, this spending could be seen as a conservative's love letter when viewed historically. Not a single cent is "given" to Ukraine. So, in a way, it is a tax return that boosts the military industry during a time when most Western countries are scaling up, which is good for the American economy.

Also, diminishing Russia without a single American soldier casualty, for a mere 5% of the defense budget, is an incredible deal. Russia is an ally of China and Iran - alone, this warrants their weakening, along with their population and industry (while also attracting their best minds who flee the country). Geopolitically, this is the most sensible approach in every conceivable way.

Furthermore, China is propping up the Russian economy, and this support is being eroded during a period of economic uncertainty for China, which in turn reduces the likelihood of a successful invasion of Taiwan, thus preserving American funds and lives (though the "why" is a whole other discussion related to semiconductors, China as a general adversary, and their funding of anti-Western sentiment in other countries and our own universities, etc.).

Many are unaware that NATO and Pax Americana, the "era of American leadership," is the very reason America is so affluent and the world relatively stable. The American military keeps the international waters safe, enabling successful global trade. Without this, without American involvement around the world, the United States would be just another country with limited influence and thus not very rich. Here in Sweden, you sometimes hear people say, "Thank God America is the world police, and not Russia or China." and many times in the past have we helped America.

[Jastall]

The intention seems good, but prolonging an unwinnable war isn't helping Ukrainians not be killed, it's just prolonging their misery and more Ukrainians will die. Ukraine and the West should understand that there is no perfect solution, and should abandon their quest for a perfect solution. Perfect is the enemy of good. Sooner or later, Ukraine and their war backers from the West will have to begin talks with Russia (and vice versa). It was a huge mistake last year for the West to pressure Indonesia into disinviting Putin from attending the G-20 summit and talking about boycotting the summit if Putin attends when it was an opportunity for both sides to talk to each other.

The war could have been avoided if the West and Ukraine were more pragmatic. Instead of burning bridges with Russia, they should have built bridges with Russia. The talk of Ukraine joining NATO at Russia's expense, Ukraine's overthrowing of the democratically elected President Yanukovych and sanctions pushed Putin into a corner. USA invaded Iraq with impunity in 2003 and caused more damage to the Iraqi people than Russia did to Ukraine between 2014 and 2022, and they weren't sanctioned like Russia was, and US proved that might is right.

Why did Russia not invade other neighbors like Kazakhstan? Because they understood that pragmatism is important, especially having Russia as their neighbor, so they knew it's best not to ditch Russia.

It's the 21st century, there should be no more wars. The onus is on both sides to talk to each other and manage differences, which means compromises have to be made for the greater good.

You still haven't explained how does one compromise with a neighbor who blatantly violates your territorial integrity despite repeated assurances not to do so at best, and thinks your very existence as a nation-state is a mistake at worst.

"Pragmatism" isn't a reason for nation-states to wholly give up their sovereignty to a neighboring imperialistic bully or suffer the consequences. That's a regional order that Russia wants to impose, but Ukraine is certainly in their right to contest that idea.

[Edge-]

Oh damn, the guy with a username claiming neutrality is just a bargain-bin Trump supporter? Rad, totally unsurprising and shocking. There's a thread all about Donald if you want to talk about him.

Anyways, back to Russia continuing to get humiliated as we're entering the final quarter of the second year of the "3-day special operation".

[Saradain]

Oh damn, the guy with a username claiming neutrality is just a bargain-bin Trump supporter? Rad, totally unsurprising and shocking. There's a thread all about Donald if you want to talk about him.

Anyways, back to Russia continuing to get humiliated as we're entering the final quarter of the second year of the "3-day special operation".

Don't forget the peace symbol avatar with the flags. TrueNeutral, the guy making few posts here and there, then devoting himself entirely on regurgitating russian agenda in this specific thread with a matching avatar for his "cause" *cough script*.

[Vulturia]

if one could bribe their way out of war, who knows what happens to the aid that the West is sending them?

Wanted to comment since this is a topic that touches me personally. I am one of those unwilling to fight (if you don't count donating $$ as fighting). On a side note, I always find it hilarious that people find all sorts of reasons (like being a pacifist, lol), as if not being brave enough to go and die (even for the best cause) is something abnormal.

It is incredibly risky do military-related crimes in Ukraine right now. Anyone aiding unlawful activity can get into a LOT of trouble.
At the very start of the war, you could go through the border illegally for a few thousand $$ (we considered that option). Very soon, it became far more risky, to the point people paid 25k$ to cross. Not even 0.1% of military-eligible Ukrainians have that money to spare (for example, I don't).
So yeah, one "could" bribe their way out. For thousands of dollars, one guy the military probably didn't particularly want would skip the draft. In no way guaranteed because these days many people wouldn't take the bribe just because they think it's wrong. What an enormous problem. I am sure multi-thousand $ bribes would absolutely not be taken in any other country, right?
As another side note, it cost ~500 bucks to skip the 1-year military service during peace time around 2010. This WAS a highly corrupt system, since the service would involve very little actual military training. Made terrible on purpose to take bribes. It was better in 2022, but not by much. Starting from that, I think we can safely say a lot of progress has been made.

Now, what about the very not-dishonest argument about foreign aid? I think everyone sending aid is well aware some of it will get misplaced. Does Ukraine have plenty of corrupt people? Sure.
But first, there are a LOT more highly-motivated and honest people than there ever were (I remember thinking when the war started "We are witnessing a nation being born - we were one before, but never like this"), and second, risk, same as above. Stealing from the military is much worse than helping some dude run away from the draft - everyone will be against you. This is very unlike the "normal" corruption of 2010 where everyone benefits until serious changes are made. I am quite sure this deters most of those for whom moral concerns are meaningless.

[D Luniz]

*snip*

And Ill add since most of the aid is in equipment, not money, its alot harder to make vanish when everyone is actively expecting it to not only show up, but be used.
This aint some prewar stockpiling where anything sent is gonna sit in a warehouse and you can claim years later "well the last three inventories said this, so the shipping papers (that have vanished) must have been wrong."

[postman1782]

Are we not allowed to have different opinions? Having a different opinion about how the war should end does not make me a Russian troll.

Not when its obvious bullshit?

[Corvus]

Ukraine has knocked out 2 more russian ships, this time with naval drones. They were landing boats, so not major warships, but they could carry 2 tanks or 4 armoured vehicles so they weren't minor vessels either. 1 apparently had an air defence system on board at the time.

[Saradain]

No idea why Russian trolls come to MMO-C to spread their message. It can't be very rewarding or influential to do it, right?

A quick google result to summarize it. Truth doesn't matter to them. As long as their shit drowns actual facts and convinces the gullible. That's probably why we sometimes get the professionals to make long-winded posts with multiple images and videos and links while utterly speaking lies.

Oh, and whataboutism. Usually mentioning USA this, USA that.

[TrueNeutral]

You still haven't explained how does one compromise with a neighbor who blatantly violates your territorial integrity despite repeated assurances not to do so at best, and thinks your very existence as a nation-state is a mistake at worst.

"Pragmatism" isn't a reason for nation-states to wholly give up their sovereignty to a neighboring imperialistic bully or suffer the consequences. That's a regional order that Russia wants to impose, but Ukraine is certainly in their right to contest that idea.

Ukraine is too important for Russia's security and Russia cannot accept Ukraine becoming a base for anti-Russian activities. That being said, there's no justification for invading a country, but Putin did, so it's important to recognize why he did it and how it could have been prevented (hint: diplomacy and making compromises).

Let me bring up the Cuban missile crisis which happened 61 years ago. Cuba is an independent country like Ukraine, yet when the Soviets began placing missiles on Cuba to serve as a launching pad (the USA had their own missiles in Turkey which was close to the Soviet Union), USA could not accept that. At the end of the day, both sides came to a compromise. The Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and the Americans removed theirs from Turkey, and USA agreed to never attack Cuba. I don't imagine USA would tolerate Russia or China placing its nukes on Mexican soil today.

Similarly, a compromise must be sought where Ukraine's sovereignty is protected and Russia's concerns about Ukraine in NATO is addressed. Both sides should first agree to a ceasefire, followed by acknowledging Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine has the opportunity to serve as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than being a dividing point between both powers. Ukraine could also give autonomy to the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine while remaining in Ukraine (except Crimea), and by doing so, you make sure Ukraine's territorial integrity is mostly protected (except Crimea, will talk about it below) while not being seen as a threat by Russia. Russia will be less inclined to see Ukraine's existence as a mistake when they do not feel threatened, and they do at the moment because Ukraine is anti-Russia (they want to cancel Russian culture) and wants to join NATO. If both countries got along (hint: they did before 2014 until democratically elected President Yanukovych was ousted), all of these wouldn't have happened.

On the issue of Crimea, Crimea is a lost cause. The people of Crimea have no desire to be part of Ukraine just like how the people of Kosovo have no desire to be part of Serbia, and Kosovo declared independence unilaterally which was recognized by most Western countries (including USA), yet the West didn't recognize Crimea's separation from Ukraine. Crimea is something both sides should discuss.

There's always room for compromise. The idea that the word "compromise" is a taboo is just amazing. As painful as it may be, peace is about compromise, and peace is better than war.

[Benggaul]

Anyone wanna post that compromise meme again? It's pretty apropos about now.

[Kaleredar]

I get why they did it starting back in 2015-ish and even early on in this war, but now? There's no more doubt to sow, we know exactly what Russia wants now, and we know Ukraine ain't about to give up. Claiming that an American president(and our worst president ever) will end a war that we're not even in is just LOL.

Aid to Ukraine has been very popular in the US.

Russia wants a weak and impotent US government that’s apathetic, if not downright supportive, of Russia’s dictatorial land-grabbing ambitions. They had that under Trump, and they want it again.

Trying to drive a wedge between the US public and support for Ukraine continues to be a primary Russian goal, seeing as the US under Biden is intensely adverse to Russia and the US is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine. So their firehouse of bullshit continues, both in supporting Trump’s return and trying to sour the notion of aide for Ukraine.

Ukraine is too important for Russia's security and Russia cannot accept Ukraine becoming a base for anti-Russian activities. That being said, there's no justification for invading a country, but Putin did, so it's important to recognize why he did it and how it could have been prevented (hint: diplomacy and making compromises).

Let me bring up the Cuban missile crisis which happened 61 years ago. Cuba is an independent country like Ukraine, yet when the Soviets began placing missiles on Cuba to serve as a launching pad (the USA had their own missiles in Turkey which was close to the Soviet Union), USA could not accept that. At the end of the day, both sides came to a compromise. The Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and the Americans removed theirs from Turkey, and USA agreed to never attack Cuba. I don't imagine USA would tolerate Russia or China placing its nukes on Mexican soil today.

Similarly, a compromise must be sought where Ukraine's sovereignty is protected and Russia's concerns about Ukraine in NATO is addressed. Both sides should first agree to a ceasefire, followed by acknowledging Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine has the opportunity to serve as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than being a dividing point between both powers. Ukraine could also give autonomy to the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine while remaining in Ukraine (except Crimea), and by doing so, you make sure Ukraine's territorial integrity is mostly protected (except Crimea, will talk about it below) while not being seen as a threat by Russia. Russia will be less inclined to see Ukraine's existence as a mistake when they do not feel threatened, and they do at the moment because Ukraine is anti-Russia (they want to cancel Russian culture) and wants to join NATO. If both countries got along (hint: they did before 2014 until democratically elected President Yanukovych was ousted), all of these wouldn't have happened.

On the issue of Crimea, Crimea is a lost cause. The people of Crimea have no desire to be part of Ukraine just like how the people of Kosovo have no desire to be part of Serbia, and Kosovo declared independence unilaterally which was recognized by most Western countries (including USA), yet the West didn't recognize Crimea's separation from Ukraine. Crimea is something both sides should discuss.

There's always room for compromise. The idea that the word "compromise" is a taboo is just amazing. As painful as it may be, peace is about compromise, and peace is better than war.

Here’s the ultimate realization you need to make:

Russia has no desire to cease waging war. Meaning they have to be beaten into submission. Your “peace” only means more war.


You’re the guy back in WW2 telling Poland and France to surrender and the US and Britain “not to keep provoking Germany.“
We’re the guys saying “damn, we should’ve helped them fight back waaaaay sooner” and are making good on that realization as we see it trying to repeat itself.

Luckily some people learned from history: to stop the megalomaniac dictator in his tracks you act fast and decisive, instead of speaking appeasement like you.



I also have zero care for Russian “concerns” about Ukraine. They deserve zero input on what another sovereign country does, no matter how much they wring their hands about NATO (who just gained two members on Russias borders!) or how many russian speaking people in one area they think means a chunk of land now belongs to them.

You know why the US doesn’t have to worry about that with Canada and Mexico? Because Canada and Mexico aren’t afraid of being fucking invaded by the US.

[Jastall]

Ukraine is too important for Russia's security and Russia cannot accept Ukraine becoming a base for anti-Russian activities. That being said, there's no justification for invading a country, but Putin did, so it's important to recognize why he did it and how it could have been prevented (hint: diplomacy and making compromises).

Let me bring up the Cuban missile crisis which happened 61 years ago. Cuba is an independent country like Ukraine, yet when the Soviets began placing missiles on Cuba to serve as a launching pad (the USA had their own missiles in Turkey which was close to the Soviet Union), USA could not accept that. At the end of the day, both sides came to a compromise. The Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba and the Americans removed theirs from Turkey, and USA agreed to never attack Cuba. I don't imagine USA would tolerate Russia or China placing its nukes on Mexican soil today.

Similarly, a compromise must be sought where Ukraine's sovereignty is protected and Russia's concerns about Ukraine in NATO is addressed. Both sides should first agree to a ceasefire, followed by acknowledging Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine has the opportunity to serve as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than being a dividing point between both powers. Ukraine could also give autonomy to the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine while remaining in Ukraine (except Crimea), and by doing so, you make sure Ukraine's territorial integrity is mostly protected (except Crimea, will talk about it below) while not being seen as a threat by Russia. Russia will be less inclined to see Ukraine's existence as a mistake when they do not feel threatened, and they do at the moment because Ukraine is anti-Russia (they want to cancel Russian culture) and wants to join NATO. If both countries got along (hint: they did before 2014 until democratically elected President Yanukovych was ousted), all of these wouldn't have happened.

On the issue of Crimea, Crimea is a lost cause. The people of Crimea have no desire to be part of Ukraine just like how the people of Kosovo have no desire to be part of Serbia, and Kosovo declared independence unilaterally which was recognized by most Western countries (including USA), yet the West didn't recognize Crimea's separation from Ukraine. Crimea is something both sides should discuss.

There's always room for compromise. The idea that the word "compromise" is a taboo is just amazing. As painful as it may be, peace is about compromise, and peace is better than war.

No shit Russia was fine with Ukraine back when its leadership was under their thumb. It's not hard to get along with your vassal.

Your compromise is that Russia gets Crimea and the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine get "autonomy" (whatever that's supposed to mean in practice) and to dictate what Ukraine, a sovereign nation, can or cannot do RE its international relations, while Ukraine gets, errr, to maybe hopefully not be invaded for the third time with only a guarantee backing it up, something they already had and that Russia promptly ignored twice when it suited them?

This isn't a compromise, it's accepting a protection racket. Don't be surprised if the Ukrainians are thoroughly unimpressed and uninterested in accepting such a thing so long as they're not forced to at gunpoint. Nations do not make a habit of surrendering their sovereignty if they can help it, for good reasons at that.

NATO in this context is more an excuse than a threat to Russia. Ukraine wants in, for reasons that are now pretty darn obvious, but the country was so corrupt nobody took their candidacy seriously. Heck just getting Finland in is a struggle for various reasons, but really, Russia felt threatened by Ukraine getting in any day now, sure bud.

BTW how does Yanukovych being democratically elected or not even matter in context? Russia itself sure doesn't give a shit about fair democratic elections, and you're overlooking a helluva lot of context by not mentioning, you know, why he got kicked out exactly. And I hope you don't start on "oh it's because evil USA plot" or something along those lines, regime changes like don't stand for long if the population doesn't want it to stand and Ukraine fighting Russia with no small amount of determination pretty clearly indicates most of the country's leanings on the matter.

You're not proposing a compromise, but a surrender, and on a very flawed basis to boot. There's a good reason darn near every Russian neighbor is either one of their client states or within NATO now, given that Russia doesn't accept neutrality. To continue protecting itself, Ukraine either surrenders their sovereignty to them, or deals with the West. That's the only two options given to them, and they decided to take the latter for various reasons. There's no magical third way where they get to keep their territory and sovereignty while being truly safe from Russian attacks; that requires being either a vassal that surrenders the former, or being in NATO so they're untouchable. There isn't really much of another path for them, Russia has made that crystal clear. So do talk to them about compromise first.

[Corvus]

So many bad takes. It doesn't matter a damn what russia thinks about its neighbours as it has no rights over them. What Ukraine does for it and it alone. It was never a threat to russia - the only threat in the region, as has been seen numerous times is russia.

Russia is an imperialistic nazi regime though, and any who support it are as well. It's the last empire that has not decolonised. If they had taken after the rest if europe and not continued to be an imperialistic regime and got over the past then there would be no troubles. But they didn't.

So why are you pushing the narrative of an imperialistic regime?