SRS Putin declares war in Ukraine, surprising no one

[Simius The Monkey]

I know we are helping UA as we probably should, but can you blame Russia for now calling it a proxy war with all the media constantly bragging about “American donated equipment, paid for by American tax dollars, approved by American congress, send tO UA to defeat Russian, while training UA on the American Equipment, targeting RU with US intelligence”

Double quoting because double mad:

(Just kidding, I just didn't want to bother finding a more relevant post of yours. This reply is directed at your entire conversation)

I know it has been stated. And I know you aren't trying to make this implication... But the reason people are resistant to calling it a proxy war is because calling it a proxy war has been Russian propaganda to justify their invasion as being in self defense. A number of articles of non Russian propagandists have also used it as a starting point for saying, really, this war was caused by NATO and they are too blame. (sure. Russia has some blame too let me pretend to admonish them real quick, but this is the US's fault and we shouldn't be causing this war to continue because reasons. Let's be the good guys by abandoning Ukraine!). So... Even acknowledging it is a proxy war opens the door to that dreck. Fuck that. If you (not you, the people doing that) are going to be so dishonest as to make that argument I'll just dismiss the premise from the start. Dishonest of me? Fuck you (not you), that's why.

But the main reason I resist calling it a proxy war is because it isn't a conflict that NATO had pressured Ukraine into fighting where they wouldn't have of their own accord. It makes it a conflict that Ukraine wouldn't have fought except for NATO interference. It diminishes the agency of Ukraine. It is clear they would have fought back regardless of NATO. They should get credit for that. Regardless of if they would have lost had NATO etal ignored what was happening and chose not to reluctantly help.

 

[mistergin]

Russia is just jealous

 

[G-man]

 

[SR_71]

 

[SR_71]

@kitty

 

[Miesha Taint]

Patrick Cockburn: Will the Ukraine War End Without Destroying All Life on the Planet?

Veteran award-winning journalists Patrick Cockburn and Robert Scheer, who met in Moscow in 1987 when Mikhail Gorbachev optimistically promised peace, now fear a descent into nuclear war hell.

scheerpost.com

 

[mistergin]

 

[SR_71]

 

[Miesha Taint]

Forgetting the apocalypse: why our nuclear fears faded – and why that’s dangerous

The long read: The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the whole world afraid of the atomic bomb – even those who might launch one. Today that fear has mostly passed out of living memory, and with it we may have lost a crucial safeguard

www.theguardian.com

 

[SR_71]

 

[Simius The Monkey]

Forgetting the apocalypse: why our nuclear fears faded – and why that’s dangerous

The long read: The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the whole world afraid of the atomic bomb – even those who might launch one. Today that fear has mostly passed out of living memory, and with it we may have lost a crucial safeguard

www.theguardian.com

Cool.

I think we are past bowing down due to that threat.

 

[whatever]

A proxy war implies we started it imo.

 

[SR_71]

 

[Miesha Taint]

Cool.

I think we are past bowing down due to that threat.

It's not a matter of bowing down but it should be taken into account with calls for regime change, demilitarization, and/or dissolving the Russian Federation into separate territories becoming increasingly popular.

 

[Miesha Taint]

A proxy war implies we started it imo.

Not necessarily. A proxy war implies we have interests beyond just defending Ukraine's sovereignty, which of course we do. There's not anything wrong with that, we should be honest about it.

 

[Simius The Monkey]

A proxy war implies we started it imo.

According to some of these fucks we did start it... By existing.

But seriously, they start out with calling it a proxy war because we aren't directly involved but are helping one side. Then basically shift to your usage to assign blame on NATO etal for the conflict. Dishonest pieces of trash. The whole lot of them.

 

[Simius The Monkey]

It's not a matter of bowing down but it should be taken into account with calls for regime change, demilitarization, and/or dissolving the Russian Federation into separate territories becoming increasingly popular.

If Russia is going to belligerently and incompetently start wars of aggression with their military they should be demilitarized. I guess we'll have to settle with doing it one St. Jav at a time until they stop attacking a nation just because they think they are stronger than them militarily. So... Good.

 

[whatever]

Focusing on the term is the root issue here

 

[EMML]

We promised to do this very thing when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.




"Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.

Now, that agreement is front and center again.

Mariana Budjeryn of Harvard University spoke with All Things Considered about the legacy of the Budapest Memorandum and its impact today.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights
On whether Ukraine foresaw the impact of denuclearizing

It is hard to estimate whether Ukrainians would foresee the impact.

It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought.

But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one."

 

[Ceaze]

 

[Faithless]

GenXHoneyBadger on TikTok

@squad3o3anonymous #securityserviceukraine #SSU #slavaukraini #human #brave #military #armytok #humanitariancrisis #sacrifice #fyp #news #truth #freedom #democracy #Europe #momsoftiktok #War

www.tiktok.com

Holy shit.

 

[whatever]

We promised to do this very thing when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.




"Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.

Now, that agreement is front and center again.

Mariana Budjeryn of Harvard University spoke with All Things Considered about the legacy of the Budapest Memorandum and its impact today.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights
On whether Ukraine foresaw the impact of denuclearizing

It is hard to estimate whether Ukrainians would foresee the impact.

It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought.

But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one."

Yea we are skirting our responsibilities there imo.

 

[Achmiel]

I'm wondering if, at the time, we might have thought a "democratic" Russia wouldn't be asshole

 

[Simius The Monkey]

I'm wondering if, at the time, we might have thought a "democratic" Russia wouldn't be asshole

There was a lot of hope of that, I think. But I was just a tot so I may be remembering wrong.

I do recall people commenting (not entirely seriously, but kinda seriously) about how Germany was going to start another world war now that it had reunited. Boy did we get that wrong. (Happily)

 

[Dusty Busterson]

I'm wondering if, at the time, we might have thought a "democratic" Russia wouldn't be asshole

Yeah there was a bit in the 90’s when it seemed like Russia might join us in the modern, relatively peaceful world.

I’m just old enough to remember the tail end of it (1995-97 or so) when it seemed like the internet might actually bring everyone together and we could work on fixing our planet, and maybe actual world peace.

Then 9/11 happened.