So you are whining over about spilled milk. — ssu
It's the typical idea that Russia would have (somehow) accepted a negotiated peace... but it was the West that fumbled it by "standing firm". — ssu
The nonchalance with which you speak of accepting Russian demands as a solution to get "peace" shows how naive your thinking is. — ssu
The Ukrainians see the US abandon their "close allies" and "deal friends" in Afghanistan, watch Afghanis literally fall off the last airplanes, and then tell themselves: hmmm, I want me some of that. — boethius
It's not about the justification, it's about what the real objectives here are. — ssu
Hence the motive for the invasion lies somewhere else. — ssu
Wrong. I've answered it. My grandfathers fought the Russians and so would I, even if I'm quite old. Their generation lost a lot more killed than the this Ukrainian generation has seen. Finland lost in WW2 2,5% of the total population. 96 000 soldiers died from 3,8 million people. Civilian losses were surprisingly small.
Now ask yourself: has yet 2,5% from the Ukrainian people (or basically 5% of the men) yet been killed?
And I think you don't understand Finnish mentality on the subject. They have made consistently polls about the attitudes towards the defense of the country by asking the same question again and again for decades: "Would you defend your country in war, even if the outcome would be questionable". Hence would you defend your country, even if there's a real possibility of losing the war. The vast majority of Finns have said yes, they would. I would also.
And if Russia nukes all the cities in Finland and ethnically cleanses out the rest surviving Finns, then take as many of them out with you and good luck with that barren nuclear wasteland then. And when likely it wouldn't come to that, defend your country to get then a better deal... like staying independent. — ssu
That's how crazy your argumentation is. — ssu
Besides, please give us the reference where Putin has said himself before 2022 that Ukraine itself poses a threat to Russia. — ssu
And then just strawman about ignoring them and assume they are lying. — ssu
They might be unhappy of NATO enlargement, but as you should notice that the enlargement of Sweden and Finland didn't actually get much if ANY response. The whole thing was a non-event. Why? Because it's a minor point, just like humanitarian issues and democracy is a minor issue to the US, but it still talks a lot about those issues in it's foreign policy discourse.
Hence to think that the reason to attack Ukraine was to avoid NATO enlargement is simply false. That (to deter Ukraine from becoming a NATO partner) was already done actually by the show of forces with large military exercises on the Ukrainian border. Besides, the whimsical idea here is to think that what countries the US Presidents says to become members would really become members de facto laughable. That it took two years for Sweden to get into NATO should tell that. No, the real reason to invade Ukraine was to gain territory, create that landbridge to Crimea, create that Novorossiya. This is not speculation, it's a fact: Russia has annexed more territories, some that it even doesn't have control. This, plus the russification efforts done in the occupied territories, should make this really clear.
What is now becoming very clear that Putin was lead to think that the invasion would be quick and similar to what happened with Crimea. And the West wouldn't be a problem... just as earlier in 2014 it hadn't been — ssu
If Russia makes territorial claims then yes, ... — ssu
There's nothing odd with that. Russian imperialists see Ukraine as the existential part of the to make them a great Power. — ssu
Ukraine didn't threaten Russia, [...] — ssu
What mistakes had been done by the West, it simply doesn't erase the fact that Putin decided to escalate a frozen conflict to a full scale conventional war with the objective of continuing the land grab it started over in 2014. — ssu
The real critique of the US could be the too little too late doctrine in supporting Ukraine, as the US didn't from the start think Ukraine would have a chance to defend itself so successfully. — ssu
↪Tzeentch, so, using the thread to air other grievances? — jorndoe
Maybe I'll call failure to recognize such like ↑ "Kremlin-blindness". — jorndoe
↪Tzeentch
, so, back to the inquiry, what the heck was the Kremlin to do with that, with what UA wanted? — jorndoe
cherry-picked — jorndoe
You departed therefrom again once having mentioned the Vietnamese — a comment I took to mean that what UA wanted was real enough, as opposed to a US plot (I suppose we might have enquired into both possibilities, but no matter).
So, implications of what they wanted, what to do with that (by the Kremlin)? — jorndoe
On the Nord Stream thing, Sy + Rose = your (sole) source...? — jorndoe
It's not settled. — jorndoe
Wait, you still claim having the scoop on the Nord Stream thing? — jorndoe
But there's another factor in respect of religious traditions, and that is the idea of revealed truth or spiritual illumination which provides the liberating understanding that is being sought by the disciple. — Wayfarer
Very good point, Tzeentch. But, sadly, the teachings, values and ethics of Jesus only appear in the Gospels, which were twisted and even invented by the apostles... — javi2541997
It's not so severe as you make it to sound, because once the operation ends and we have some kind of a cease-fire, then the people will forget the issue. Out of sight, out of mind. — ssu
The only reason would be if Trump's base would be upset about Israel. It's not. It's the leftist students in the university campuses and the Arab Americans who are upset about the treatment of Palestinians. — ssu
Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th. — Punshhh