Again the typical anti-American view: Ukraine and the Ukrainians have no agency in this fight. — ssu

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic.

Jeez. I'm glad I haven't been participating in this thread for a while. You guys are entrenched. It's like WWI all over again. Carry on!

The issue in this thread is indicative of the times we live in.

Adhering to the "right" ideology, cheerleading for the "right" side, parroting the "right" narrative is all more important than acknowledging realities, even when the cost is prolonged war, human lives, etc.

That's why the more moderate voices in this thread are instantly met with hostility and branded as partisan, Russia sympathizers, etc. - because we do not adhere to the "right" narrative, and refuse to parrot its mantras.

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well.

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. Insinuations that it's just a kleptocratic regional power are taken as hostile language.

I think I understand that.

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. — frank

You're just proving my point here, buddy. :clap:

What point?

You agree that this situation is not anywhere close to being as bad as an actual military defeat in Kherson, positions overrun, lines routed, soldiers surrounded ... so how is the current situation a "strong signal" of military might? — boethius

The Ukrainians forced the Russians to withdraw by cutting them from their supplies and by slowly grinding their defense lines. And they keep pushing; they won't stop at the river Dniepr.

In any case my point was simply to show that you have no intellectual honesty. A couple of months ago you said: Kherson is the litmus test for Ukraine's capacity to fight back Russia, and today you are saying something else altogether. You are a joke.

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well. — Tzeentch

Nice self-criticism. Now do something about it.

Nice self-criticism. — Olivier5

I've never been hostile to anyone in this thread, but keep trying.

And yes, yours is exactly the behavior I am talking about.

You've been hostile to me alright.

Your accusations of partisanship at my address have spanned the entirety of this 400-page long thread, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

If you're going to be man enough to dish it out, be prepared to receive.

I've written two or three times about your obvious pro-Russian bias. I have an obvious pro-Ukrainian bias, btw, and I am not shy to admit it. I don't understand why you hide away from your own opinions. Why do you fell so touchy and anxious about being called pro-Russian?

What you perceive as an attack on your "partisanship" is simply me telling you a fact: that you have a pro-Russian bias, or preference, in this war. Facts do not attack anyone, so relax already.

Just calling out your bullshit for what it is. :kiss:

So you don't agree that you are pro-Russian, in this particular conflict? Just to be clear.

However unjust it might be, Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

"Careful reading of the passage is essential for proper understanding and answering correctly."

Ambiguity is not my cup of tea. I asked you a simple question. You should be able to answer it with a yes or a no.

Let me make it even simpler for you: if Ukraine was to kick Russian forces out of its territory, would you be happy, or sad?

I'm not here to prove anything to you. Take a hike.

Well, you just lost an excellent occasion to clarify your position.

But be my guest. Wallow in ambiguity all you like, if you have something to hide to yourself.

to Isaac, it doesn't matter at all to Ukraine and the Ukrainians if they are in control of their own country or under Putin's de-nazification program. All the killings, the forced evictions, the fake referendums and the Russification measures in the occupied territories are totally meaningless for Isaac. Because all that doesn't matter to Isaac. — ssu

Nothing in the quote you cited either latterly or formerly says anything about what may or may not matter to Ukrainians. I can't think why you'd imagine I even have an opinion on what matters to Ukrainians. I really don't give a fuck what matters to Ukrainians, why would I? I don't judge right and wrong by vote.

What I'm writing about is what I think is right based on my humanitarian principles. Which is all any of us can do in an ethical discussion. I don't think the Ukrainian government should be making decisions that cause more suffering, I couldn't care less if they have 'agency' or not.

Perhaps it doesn't matter because it's not done by the Americans (and then it would matter a lot to Isaac). — ssu

The reason none of those matter is written in the fucking quote...

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

...and no, the Ukrainian government doesn't get the right to commit more of it's people to death and misery just because it has 'agency'.

Well, you just lost an excellent occasion to clarify your position. — Olivier5

I think his position is pretty clear. He's saddened that Russia is struggling right now. *shrug*

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well. — Tzeentch

I may have been inclined to disagree with this earlier, when it seemed there were two equally viable opinions and my main beef was that one of them was being branded pro-Putin without any justification. Now, however, as seems to be the way with these internet fads, it's starting to come unravelled and I think you're right. there's a desperate clinging to the narrative they felt they had some authority repeating (Washington-Post-and-New-York-Times-bestowed authority no less), but now even the likes of the those known warmongers are openly running articles about the risks of escalation, the need for diplomacy and the low chances of Ukraine winning back much more land.

The faddists become ever more desperate and start citing each other's tweets, having run out of any expert opinion at all, those all having jumped the sinking ship, having a little more foresight.

In a year's time they'll be back to Ukraine stories about growing Nazism, corruption and black market arms dealing, US stories about rampant militarism and lobbying powers, and they'll pretend they never thought otherwise, but they leave behind trails of people still vomiting up the previous stock narrative who aren't as fleet of opinion as the modern media.

Agreed. I just tried to have him express his opinion clearly. He's too much of a chicken for that, apparently.

Agreed. I just tried to have him express his opinion clearly. He's too much of a chicken for that, apparently. — Olivier5

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why.

Better stop shooting down missiles and kamikaze drones then — jorndoe

Yes. Since Poland are already talking of invoking Article 4, it's obvious to anyone not caught up in their naive Hollywood version of how wars go that a few missiles getting trough to Ukraine causes less death and destruction than shooting them down would if doing so triggers a NATO-Russia conflict.

So yes, Ukraine ought to be very very careful indeed with these weapons and may have to make some very difficult strategic decisions about the safety of their use.

One such very important strategic decision, for example, would be to not immediately claim it's a Russian conspiracy to even talk about the possibility that the missile came from Ukraine.

Russia:

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov accused some countries of making "baseless claims" about the missile incident and said the US response has been more measured in comparison.

"In this instance, attention should be paid to the measured and more professional response from the American side," he said

Rest of the world:
(generally along the lines of...) "We'll see after the investigation, our condolences to Poland"

Ukraine:

Meanwhile, Ukraine's said allegations that one of its own missiles had landed in Poland were a "conspiracy theory."

"Russia now promotes a conspiracy theory that it was allegedly a missile of Ukrainian air defense that fell on the territory of Poland. This is not true. No one should buy Russian propaganda or amplify its messages," Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Twitter.

It's not a good look for a country desperately trying to convince the world that it doesn't engage in the same level of knee-jerk instant-denial propaganda that Russia does.

Agency entirely dependent on the weapons of others, isn't agency. And pointing out the influence the US has over this conflict is hardly anti-American, it's realistic. — Benkei

They still have decisions to make, that's what agents do.
Putin's decisions, on the other hand, are kind of a prerequisite here, "influence" being invasion bombing annexations re-culturation whatever, it's not like others can just choose for those things to not go on.
As it stands, the US is definitely also an influence, and NATO, the EU, China (yaay), ...
I guess what's been seen here and there, is that these things have been used as a springboard for haters, US-haters especially, and that's when they blame the US for all, the invasion bombing annexations re-culturation whatever (the constellations?), a diversion often enough playing right into Putin's hands (and their propaganda) by the way. :down: The US ain't the center of the world.

Meanwhile ...

Power outages in Moldova after Russian strikes in Ukraine
^{— Cristian Jardan, Stephen McGrath · AP News · Nov 15, 2022}

Just cutting "successful" Russian bombing in half would help, taking out 92 of 100 better, ...

that's when they blame the US for all, the invasion bombing annexations re-culturation whatever (the constellations?), a diversion often enough playing right into Putin's hands (and their propaganda) by the way. :down: The US ain't the center of the world. — jorndoe

Cite a single commentator either here or in media who blames the US for all

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why. — frank

They say hypocrisy is the homage of vice to virtue.

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why.
— frank

They say hypocrisy is the homage of vice to virtue. — Olivier5

Just so delusional.

If parts of reality just don't happen to be "good" for Ukraine, pointing that out isn't being pro-Russian, it's just understanding reality.

I think @Tzeentch has said it best:

Adhering to the "right" ideology, cheerleading for the "right" side, parroting the "right" narrative is all more important than acknowledging realities, even when the cost is prolonged war, human lives, etc. — Tzeentch

But to give an example of this, Zelenskyites would definitely take issue with my sentence:

What Ukraine is discovering is simply the reasoning behind why weaker states generally try to deal with stronger states diplomatically (accepting a worse negotiating position and accepting the stronger state can anyways more easily break whatever agreement is reached than themselves) rather than pick a fight with a stronger state on the basis of nationalist jingoism. — boethius

But this is just reality, simply what weaker states do.

For example, Finland has received praise upon praise for killing Russians in the Winter war.

However, not only did they "lose" the war, lose 20% of territory and need to pay reparations to the Soviet Union, but following exactly the common sense proscription for dealing with a more powerful neighbour was criticised by the West for decades! Literally named being nice and currying favour with the Soviet Union for the sake of not being invaded (again) after Finland and then expanded it to the entire concept.

Finlandization (Finnish: suomettuminen; Swedish: finlandisering; German: Finnlandisierung; Estonian: soomestumine; Russian: финляндизация, finlyandizatsiya) is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.[1] The term means "to become like Finland", referring to the influence of the Soviet Union on Finland's policies during the Cold War. — Finlandization

Notice what no one named Finland after was fanatical uncompromising war, refusing to meet with the "war criminal" Stalin, etc.

Why? Because that didn't happen, and both before, during and after the war Finland tried to make common sense diplomatic decisions to avoid conflict taking into account the Soviet Union being more powerful than them.

Oil depot in Russia’s Oryol Region attacked by drone
^{— TASS · Nov 16, 2022}

Suspected drone hits oil depot in Russia's Oryol, officials say
^{— Reuters · Nov 16, 2022}

Hmm... Another stray? Or not.



Elsewhere ...

The Ukraine war in maps | Russia launches largest missile attack of the conflict against key infrastructure
^{— Javier Galán, Mariano Zafra · EL PAÍS · Nov 16, 2022}

:fire:

What's the point of your post?

Why not post news snippets to news snippet aggregators on reddit or wherever?

If it ever becomes relevant to the discussion, you can then just link to your aggregated news snippets about it.

If parts of reality just don't happen to be "good" for Ukraine, pointing that out isn't being pro-Russian, it's just understanding reality. — boethius

That is entirely correct, but not at issue. My point was rather that if parts of reality just don't happen to be "good" for Russia, pretending against all evidence that they are "good" for Russia is being pro-Russian,