Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Deus Mortis]

No. But when you are 100% channeling talking points that are literally spawned out of Russian propaganda, like "corrupt Ukraine" and the whole "ceasefire" and "proxy war" shit you are 100% a Vatnik.

There isn't a single person who isn't a Russia simp or a deranged "America bad" tankie who thinks this is a proxy war or that Ukrainians are somehow culturally "corrupt".

He is right about several things he is talking about, Ukraine is an extremely corrupt country, and you can look through my post history in this thread and it shows I am clearly behind Ukraine 100% since day 1. Ukraine right now is having a serious manpower problem. Ukraine messed up by not lowering their conscription age until it got to this point(it is now 25). This is a problem because Russia has 3x the pool of people to pull from to throw into meatwaves. This is sadly adding up especially with the Republicans being shitheads and not sending aid for 6+months.

Who cares where you borrow them from? You're not thinking rationally, because there is no Earthly way to honestly claim that Russia v. Ukraine is a "proxy war". Who's Russia a proxy for?

Ukraine war literally listed in the proxy war section.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war

Proxy wars have continued into the 21st century. Notable examples include a civil war in Yemen, begun in 2014, involving a major clash between the militant Houthi movement, supported by Iran, and Yemeni government forces, supported by Saudi Arabia and its allies. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States and its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies acted as third-party supporters of Ukraine, supplying that country with significant military assistance and imposing economic sanctions on Russia, while China and Iran acted as third-party supporters of Russia.

[Gaidax]

He is right about several things he is talking about, Ukraine is an extremely corrupt country, and you can look through my post history in this thread and it shows I am clearly behind Ukraine 100% since day 1.

Just on the corruption part, oh boy I have quite a few things in my belly to let out on that one.

• My dad was a ship captain for the governmental shipping company. For his last contract he had to take a loan, so he could pay a bribe to get assigned to the job so we can have some income. He died in that assignment at sea from a heart attack.
• When my mother petitioned for the insurance payout, the official from that government company told her "nice kid you have there". At which point she understood that she better drop it and forget it. I am sure someone pocketed that money happily.
• That's when we decided to immigrate, and she had to pay quite a few bribes to various officials in the internal affairs agencies to have them literally do their job in a timely manner to be able to do it and that was in the open, a matter of fact thing. Otherwise she'd be stuck in a queue hell for years.

And those are just the highlights as far as my personal experiences as Ukrainian citizens in Ukraine go. A lot of things I didn't even spot being a younger teen back then, the above is just a shortlist of obvious stuff I seen with my own eyes (for example bribing a public official) or my mother shared with me down the road and I bet it's not even half of it.

People who say there is a fundamental corruption problem in Ukraine are on the money there. All these oligarchs sitting high up, are crime princes from 90s' who by intimidation and corruption bought their places there. Why I bet that asshole who pocketed my dad's life insurance is also somewhere nice in retirement there with all the money he stole from people like my mother.

[Elder Millennial]

...

The insistence of denying that Ukraine can make, is making or has made systemic reforms to deny Ukraine's political ambitions of joining the EU is a Russian talking point.

The insistence of calling the war a proxy war to deny Ukrainian agency is once again a Russian talking point. The use of half-truths is an essential component of how Russian propaganda works.

I'll show you the contextual difference.

"Ukraine has and had serious issues with corruption and they need to work on it to join the EU." -this is how you address the issue of corruption without reciting Russian talking points.

"Ukraine is a corrupt country and they don't belong in the EU" -this is Russian propaganda.

See the difference?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please.

Take your daddy anecdotes and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[Gaidax]

Take your daddy anecdotes and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Oh, what's the matter? Did the reality of life in Ukraine not align with your Twitter talking points yet again? How sad.

"Anecdotes". That's how bad shit is there, kid.

[Deus Mortis]

The insistence of denying that Ukraine can make, is making or has made systemic reforms to deny Ukraine's political ambitions of joining the EU is a Russian talking point.

The insistence of calling the war a proxy war to deny Ukrainian agency is once again a Russian talking point. The use of half-truths is an essential component of how Russian propaganda works.

I'll show you the contextual difference.

"Ukraine has and had serious issues with corruption and they need to work on it to join the EU." -this is how you address the issue of corruption without reciting Russian talking points.

"Ukraine is a corrupt country and they don't belong in the EU" -this is Russian propaganda.

See the difference?

- - - Updated - - -



Take your daddy anecdotes and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Did I ever state that Ukraine can't? No I did not. The current fact is Ukraine is still very corrupt, yes they are working on it which I am glad to see, and I hope they continue to work on it. It should hopefully be easier for them to focus on once this war is done, and you know not having to focus on not going extinct. Once they can get it to a more balanced level then they will become part of the EU as well as Nato. Putting your head in the sand with the realities of what is going on in the war helps no one. The current reality atm is very grim, and I wish it wasn't, I wish Ukrainians didn't have to suffer to their genocidal neighbors.

[alach]

The irony being Ukraine is only a corrupt country because of its russian history.
They are doing better to address those issues than a few other eastern European countries already in the EU btw.
They want to or Zelensky wouldn't be president, and they have to as their existence as a country depends on it.

Also, good job, @Elder.

Comic God is a bit much maybe, but it's all right. Yet again, the corruption it makes fun of is a common issue across the entire eastern European former soviet bloc. Several of which are doing very little to address.

[Gaidax]

Reminds me of one more bit.

There was that Ukrainian TV series from 2015, Servant of the People. I watched it all natively, it was so good.

Starring Zelensky, by the way, he is a god comic actor IMO. The whole concept of the show was that he acted as a teacher who went on a rant about corruption in a class and went viral, in turn becoming a president.

The whole show is one giant parody on corruption and life in Ukraine. It's literally a guide and it hit close to home for me, because I experienced parts of that myself.

Subsequently - this same Zelensky actually became the president, because that show and his character resonated with so many people.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servan...015_TV_series)

Edit: I realized it's on Netflix too, HUGE RECOMMENDATION. I don't know if the jokes and references translate well to English, but I think it should be fine.

[Endus]

Ukraine war literally listed in the proxy war section.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war

Providing military materiel or funding shouldn't be sufficient to qualify. If we're using that loose a definition, Israel's always been a proxy. Most peacekeeping efforts would, weirdly, be proxy wars. Etc. What "strategic interests" is supporting Ukraine fostering, beyond Ukraine surviving as a nation? Is any aid supporting any nation that was attacked without cause a "proxy war"? It doesn't seem like a useful term at that point. And that most conflicts are proxy wars, as a result.

[Mayhem]

First of all to channel something I'd need to subscribe to those specific channel sources.

Seeing you're keenly aware of what Russia is putting out, maybe you're the one who is vatnik here?

What I write is my opinion, based on information I have and on my personal experience of living a good chunk of my life in Ukraine. I am very aware of what is going on there down to details, because I have experienced quite a bit of myself and I have my friends there keeping me up to date on what is going on, when I contact them to see if they are all right.

There is this idiotic sentiment going on that the reality needs to be denied, just because it does not align with the circlejerk. Shit like that does not work on me. I, personally, am having plenty of beef with Russia because they are an indirect menace on my life in more ways than one.

However due to how my life experiences, I am less in a position to be living in some delusions. Sometimes things are as they are, even if you don't like it and I don't really care about scoring pointless e-points here trying to deny reality, just to be one of the cool kids.

It speaks for your vast experience and intelligence that you can't see the problems in your "this will absolutely happen" argument even when pointed right at them by different posters.

It would of course help if you'd refute the arguments brought forward as to why your points make no sense but instead you whine and tell us where you're from as if we can somehow verify it or as if being from a place makes you automatically understand geopolitics or war.

Yeah, mr "woohooo we place 5th in the ESC the world loves us" is not here to score e-points, of course not.

[Gaidax]

It speaks for your vast experience and intelligence that you can't see the problems in your "this will absolutely happen" argument even when pointed right at them by different posters.

It would of course help if you'd refute the arguments brought forward as to why your points make no sense but instead you whine and tell us where you're from as if we can somehow verify it or as if being from a place makes you automatically understand geopolitics or war.

Yeah, mr "woohooo we place 5th in the ESC the world loves us" is not here to score e-points, of course not.

I have explained my position, that you don't like the explanation or it does not align with your talking points, does not mean there is a "problem" with it.

[Elder Millennial]

Did I ever state that Ukraine can't? No I did not. The current fact is Ukraine is still very corrupt, yes they are working on it which I am glad to see, and I hope they continue to work on it. It should hopefully be easier for them to focus on once this war is done, and you know not having to focus on not going extinct. Once they can get it to a more balanced level then they will become part of the EU as well as Nato. Putting your head in the sand with the realities of what is going on in the war helps no one. The current reality atm is very grim, and I wish it wasn't, I wish Ukrainians didn't have to suffer to their genocidal neighbors.

You were replying to a lengthy exchange I was having with someone else.

[Xyonai]

I see with the trolls gone, folks have gotten bored and singled out the dissenting voice in the thread.

While, overall, I don't agree with Gaidax's pessimism (for a lack of a better word); the concerns about Ukraine's manpower are absolutely valid. New weapons and financial support go a really long way, but Ukraine - and Russia to an extent - can't do much with their equipment if there aren't enough bodies to use them.

Though it's been a bit since I did a diving on troop numbers to know if an army collapse due to a lack of warm bodies truly an immediate issue, but if Russia can keep grinding Ukraine then it's a very real concern and possibility. Likewise, it's an issue for Russia if they keep suffering mass casualties for every city they manage to capture, but they've got a much deeper pool of able bodies to pull from that, despite several meat grinders, they're still chugging along, albiet at a relative crawl compared to the opening year of the conflict.

The longer this drags out, the more likely the two ends will just stall eachother at the Dnipro River, taking pot shots and natrually form a sort of stalemate from there unless one side can accomplish another land-grabbing thunder run to get some momentum back and/or drastically cut off financial/material support from the adversary sometime within - taking a wild guess here - the next year and a half. Though a second Biden Term might see a redoubled effort in Arming Ukraine, since that seems to be one of the very few foreign policy issues that has overwhelming bipartisan support, and the types of equipment being dolled out might be enough to help Ukraine along for a good while longer.

[Kaleredar]

He is right about several things he is talking about, Ukraine is an extremely corrupt country, and you can look through my post history in this thread and it shows I am clearly behind Ukraine 100% since day 1. Ukraine right now is having a serious manpower problem. Ukraine messed up by not lowering their conscription age until it got to this point(it is now 25). This is a problem because Russia has 3x the pool of people to pull from to throw into meatwaves. This is sadly adding up especially with the Republicans being shitheads and not sending aid for 6+months.



Ukraine war literally listed in the proxy war section.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/proxy-war

I’m not sure what labeling it as a proxy war accomplishes.


Russia attacked Ukraine on their own volition. Ukraine has opted to defend itself on its own volition. The US, or NATO, or anyone else, did not cause either of those things to happen.

Would Ukraine’s position be “more pure and noble” if “the west” had opted not to help them, or if Ukraine had refused their help? No, they’d all be fucking morons. But because they aren’t, the US and Europe saw the danger posed by an expansionist Russia and Ukraine recognized a force willing and able to help them resist invasion.

It’s useless pedantics. If the US, EU, and NATO want to back Ukraine… good.

You’d be hard pressed to find any major war in which other countries weren’t funding or aiding the nations in the conflict.


But the Russian narrative is that the US or “the west” or whoever caused this to happen. That Ukraine didn’t roll over and die at the slightest Russian provocation (no matter how much Russia hoped otherwise) does not mean that Russian talking point is actually true. Because what Russia is trying to do with this narrative is to shift blame off of themselves, when in fact Russia is entirely to blame.

[Mayhem]

I have explained my position, that you don't like the explanation or it does not align with your talking points, does not mean there is a "problem" with it.

I mean I have a hard time understanding this:

For Russia - it's an out and with results on the ground they can sell at home.
For the West - it's a way to keep Ukraine afloat and Russia at bay, while not spending any more resources that are better reserved for the upcoming Taiwan and troubles at home.
For Ukraine - the few years of reprieve can help rebuild their strength, especially human personnel.

Because the points contradict each other.

IF it is an out for Russia Ukraine doesn't need to rebuild strength, UNLESS you think Russia will attack again, but then everything that helps Ukraine also helps Russia, double so because they have more resources and more people.

So how is that something Ukraine can live with? They not only get nothing out of it, but they also lose territory in the process and at best buy time while Russia rearms, brings their military complex in order, and invades again maybe while the world is occupied with Taiwan.

Brilliant

[Gaidax]

I mean I have a hard time understanding this:

For Russia - it's an out and with results on the ground they can sell at home.
For the West - it's a way to keep Ukraine afloat and Russia at bay, while not spending any more resources that are better reserved for the upcoming Taiwan and troubles at home.
For Ukraine - the few years of reprieve can help rebuild their strength, especially human personnel.

Because the points contradict each other.

IF it is an out for Russia Ukraine doesn't need to rebuild strength, UNLESS you think Russia will attack again, but then everything that helps Ukraine also helps Russia, double so because they have more resources and more people.

So how is that something Ukraine can live with? They not only get nothing out of it, but they also lose territory in the process and at best buy time while Russia rearms, brings their military complex in order, and invades again maybe while the world is occupied with Taiwan.

Brilliant

I'll try to explain in good faith, since at least you apparently try to discuss it in good faith this time around.

The word "out" means more of a time out to do what you wrote, namely get a reprieve to rebuild their strength and better align economy to their long term goals. Russia is not going to go docile for long, in case of agreement it will most likely try to push again as soon as China makes a move.

During that time Russia will replenish its stockpiles and take another go at blitzing Ukraine from a stronger position. So for Russia such a timeout is a win, especially because it secures their war gains at least to some extent.

---

For Ukraine, it's a simple matter of reality that they can't take back what Russia captured by force to any significant extent any time soon.

Forget the arms - they simply don't have the people for it. The 3-5 years or however many the agreement would hold will give them time to both rearm, with most importantly maybe getting airforce in order with F16s, improving air defense (which is also a pain, by the way), preparing and deploying more advanced weaponry and so on. But even more importantly that time will give them another generation of soldiers to field - that is the key here.

That's why I am saying that Ukraine would like the settlement the least, but might benefit from it the most given the current situation.

---

And for the West, as I have explained, the West needs to start preparing for the confrontation in Taiwan and the aftershocks of that, as well as buy more time to modernize and populate European armies for Russia's plan B/C/whatever. As well as reinforce Ukraine without having to rush or make a drama out of it like it happened with those $60bn. Budgeting the support over a few years is much more palatable than a lump sum like that.

Another point is that Putin isn't eternal, who knows maybe in 3-4 years from now he won't be around anymore and the next guy in line might be more willing to compromise for permanent settlement. Though I am super skeptic at that, as I keep saying that Putin is just a tip of an iceberg and the system will just put up another Putin instead.


So yes, every side has good reasons to take a pause. I don't think anyone would be naive to think it would be more than a pause, but it probably is for the better for all the parties involved.

[No Kings Voter]

I’m not sure what labeling it as a proxy war accomplishes.

It's just another passive-aggressive way to deligetimize Ukraines self determination.
Look's like Putin's PR machine at the nashi is doing a soft reboot while everyone is distracted by palestine and US elections. The KGB and successor orgs have long tried to exploit Campism. The only twist now is; their natural allies are mostly on the right.

[Gaidax]

I’m not sure what labeling it as a proxy war accomplishes.

It mostly gives the correct idea who holds the keys to this whole conflict.

The reality is that this is a West vs Russia tussle. Ukraine is an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on here. When the settlement will come the signatories may be Ukraine and Russia, but in reality, it will be West and Russia who will hammer the terms between themselves and Ukraine will have to swallow it and agree, just like they did in Minsk one.

To soothe some fee fees here, Russia is the clear aggressor. The West did not want this war and did not start this war.

For Russia it's there to satisfy their imperialistic desires and to keep populace in check, while for the West it's a shield wall they pull up to keep the threat at bay. Neither really particularly care about Ukraine.

Just like in Russian agencies orchestrating this whole thing nobody really thinks Ukraine is full of Nazis and they do this because they need to protect poor Russian speaking populace from neo-Nazi atrocities fable, in the same fashion nobody in the State Department or whoever it is supports Ukraine because they just love their self-determination aspirations.

It's all one big geopolitical game neither side wants to lose and probably even bigger than just in that area.

[Specialka]

The insistence of denying that Ukraine can make, is making or has made systemic reforms to deny Ukraine's political ambitions of joining the EU is a Russian talking point.

The insistence of calling the war a proxy war to deny Ukrainian agency is once again a Russian talking point. The use of half-truths is an essential component of how Russian propaganda works.

I'll show you the contextual difference.

"Ukraine has and had serious issues with corruption and they need to work on it to join the EU." -this is how you address the issue of corruption without reciting Russian talking points.

"Ukraine is a corrupt country and they don't belong in the EU" -this is Russian propaganda.

See the difference?

- - - Updated - - -



Take your daddy anecdotes and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I never said said they can't do it, I said I do not believe they can, see the difference ?

[Wilian]

What "strategic interests" is supporting Ukraine fostering, beyond Ukraine surviving as a nation?

We in the countries bordering Russia are under no delusion that would Russia win in Ukraine that they'd just stop there. It's in our strategic best interest to aid Ukraine into victory because it's already obvious that would they fall, then it'd be Moldova next, it's being staged for operations from the two Russian colonies within it already. Russian population as a whole, in terms of economy and culturally is prepared for a war against both Baltics and us in Finland. In Finland Russia has made decades of preparations for potential invasion which we only in recent decades have caught up to, to prevent.

West have already proven it's limp dicked with it's response in Ukraine, thoroughly so and only message we have given out is that Russia doesn't even need to apply "red lines" because we are more than willing to do so on ourselves. While NATO is for the moment "hisorically united" we have rats like Hungary in it and here in the long border with Russia we know they might probably at some point try some sort of small operation, significant enough to count but "insignificant enough" for NATO to respond to avoid greater war and about all military experts agree on that notion.

For us, keeping Ukraine in the game is not merely interest of their survival as a nation even if that is one of the key points but also to prevent escalation against us. That is why on average, per capita we are aiding Ukraine way above our economic weight, in some cases 2-4x vs. any of the larger providers. That is why we are far more open about talking sending troops directly to Ukraine.

[DarkTZeratul]

The reality is that this is a West vs Russia tussle. Ukraine is an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on here.

Bullshit. It's entirely a Russia vs. Ukraine tussle. Ukraine isn't "an unfortunate bone for Russia to gnaw on," it's their entire goal. They want to annex Ukraine. Full stop. That western aid has helped Ukraine resist that doesn't make it a proxy war between the west and Russia.

When the settlement will come the signatories may be Ukraine and Russia, but in reality, it will be West and Russia who will hammer the terms between themselves and Ukraine will have to swallow it and agree

I don't buy this for a moment. "The West" won't be hammering out terms with Russia, because "the West" isn't a belligerant in the conflict (besides which "the West" is not a real faction, political or otherwise, beyond being a holdover term from the Cold War). The US and the EU don't seem at all interested in dictating terms beyond supporting what Ukraine wants. Any terms that Ukraine will "have to swallow and agree to" would effectively amount to a conditional Ukrainian surrender.

Just like in Russian agencies orchestrating this whole thing nobody really thinks Ukraine is full of Nazis and they do this because they need to protect poor Russian speaking populace from neo-Nazi atrocities fable, in the same fashion nobody in the State Department or whoever it is supports Ukraine because they just love their self-determination aspirations.

While you're not entirely wrong here (obviously the US and the EU are not entirely altruisitic in their support, geopolitics being what they are the supporting nations are all acting out of self-interest to some degree or another), insisting that it's a proxy war and it's really "the West" fighting Russia does nothing but play into Russian propaganda and reduces Ukraine from defending against an unprovoked attack to simply a pawn in a broader war that has no real agency of its own. It's inaccurate, it's demeaning to Ukraine, and it serves only to give validation to Russia's post-hoc justification of protecting themselves against NATO.