The Ukrainians are understandably overstating their case. They are trying to make NATO join the conflict by making us even more scared of what's going on (see the overblown reports about atomic power plant attacks, unfounded claims that Ukraine is only a first step in some grander attack against the West etc).
Be very careful in what you believe. If the Russians wanted genocide (which I find, honestly, about as nonsense as Russians saying Ukraine has a Nazi governement), they wouldn't need to send troops in, right? They could just have bombed their cities indiscriminately from a safe distance. The Russian attacks are happening in the cities, it's true, but where do you think the Ukrainian military is?? Why didn't they fight the Russians outside the cities to avoid that? Have you heard of "protracted war"?
While not all information is correct, I don't see Ukrainians overstating that they are facing existencial risk. The country is being attacked, million people are refugees now, thousands dead, probably even more injured, maimed, civilians are being killed, their houses destroyed.
The nuclear power plant was attacked, what is incorrect about that?
It is clear that Russia has started to war to deprive Ukraine to their independence. There is no doubt about that.
I wish I had never been in a position to weigh the two but deprivation of independence and selective political persecution, however bad, does not go as low as genocide.
Genocide indeed targets the entire demographic and is insidious in part because it may be misleadingly quiet and peaceful (see the ongoing sterilization of Uyghur women).
That said, one can consider deprivation of independence as adjacent to cultural genocide.
Genocide is just a term and where you draw a line is subjective. Ukraine suffered Golodomor and if they lose this war there will be Golodomor 2. It is not about culture but real lives lost. In tens of thousands, maybe even millions.
Terms have definitions, otherwise communication is noise. To directly quote a friend living near Kherson: “they are shooting when military is attacked”. She is on the ground (private house) and feels safe, but strongly worried about residents of apartment buildings that get damaged in fire. Do with that anecdata what you will.
If the war persists in the cities, such death toll is certainly a horrible possibility. It is hopeful that humanitarian corridors seem to be opening up. Though not to Kyiv, where I have a teammate. He just keeps working as normal… Feels like he is trying to escape reality.
Hey, they do want to help!! But they can't! Entering open conflict with Russia is the worst possible thing that could happen to Europe, even worse than letting Russia win this war, unfortunately for Ukrainians. Why? Because we're talking about nuclear war here... Russia's threats are not just buffling! Most people they were buffling with invading Ukraine... now we know they are dead serious about this and we absolutely should not take our chances.
To those who think this is just a first step: it's not. It really is not. All other European states that could possibly be invaded or even just harassed by Russia are already part of NATO except maybe for Finland (which while not being a NATO member, has very close relationship with NATO and is likely to be defended by NATO even if they don't become members in the next few months) and Moldova. So anything Russia does in Europe after this war is over will very likely cause NATO to react militarily (which it made clear it wouldn't do in Ukraine before the war started) probably before Russia even has a chance to move, so the story will be very different.
What I see here is people (not you, but those I respond to) saying two things: (A) Ukraine must win and (B) Europe won’t help.
I love Ukraine and I want it to exist as an independent democratic country, yet I can’t help but think whoever says both (A) and (B) has probably evacuated all friends and family (if they were ever in Ukraine) and has no regard for the rest. Meanwhile, I have people there, and if we go the A + B route it is likely to drag on for weeks meaning I may lose them—not to genocide or mass murder, which from what I personally know so far strikes me as blatantly made-up propaganda, but to stray ordnance (I pray bombings don’t commence) and most importantly food shortages about to turn into literal hunger.
To those people I say: if you can make (A) happen, make it happen; otherwise do everyone a favor, stop armchair-urging people to die and focus on diplomacy.
Very sorry to hear you have family still in Ukraine.
In respect to those people's lives, I believe that Ukraine MUST find an immediate solution with Russia - this is between those two nations before everything else. Those two nations are the ones whose citizens are dying.
As cruel as it is to the people of Ukraine, the rest of Europe is not going to risk being in the same situation as they are in (much worse if Russia decided to use nukes as they *promised* to in case of interference). (B) is going to continue to be in the form of money, military and medical supplies, which seems to me to be far from enough to allow Ukraine to win in any meaningful way... at least not in months... it would take closer to a decade or so (think of how Vietnam or Afghanistan "won" against the USA).
Is that better than try to find an agreement with Russia that would give a short term victory to Russia, but stop this destruction immediately? The world already has tremendous respect for the fight Ukraine has put up! They don't have anything to prove to anyone.
Honest question: what makes you think Ukraine can win this war "quickly"?
I believe the fastest way out for Ukraine is to give Russia a guarantee that it will not pursue NATO membership (I understand this is all that Russia wants and has been asking since the 2014 coup that removed the Pro-Russia government), ensure Russian-speaking citizens in Eastern Ukraine will not be prosecuted, and acknowledge Russian rule over Krimea.
This should absolutely be acceptable to Russia, and while not being great for Ukraine, it's still better than a prolongued war with Russia and the chaos that will follow even after the war finally ends (with Ukraine's infrastructure most likely almost entirely destroyed)...
Why I think this should be acceptable to Ukraine? Because Ukraine has always had a "blurry" border (this is the same all over Europe, by the way! The very notion of statehood is a 19th century concept in most of Europe) with Russia. Losing a small part of its territory shouldn't be such a huge deal - it's less of a deal than having its cities bombed to the ground and its population fleeing for their lives for years to come, at least.
Accepting to not join NATO is a greater problem as that practically means the threat of aggresion by Russia will continue. But the alternative, Russia NOT having a say and "allowing" Ukraine to join NATO has already proven to be unacceptable to Russia to the extent it's willing to destroy its own economy to prevent that from happening (it might even use nukes, as Putin made clear already). However, this is something that with a few decades of careful negotiations with both sides can actually end up benefiting Ukraine! How? Ukraine will have leverage on both sides: the West does not want to let Moscow have a say in Ukrainian affairs, specially after this aggressive war, while Russia will have no choice but thread carefully with its businesses in Ukraine, trying to keep Ukrainians happy enough to not want to overwhelmingly join NATO and "fight" with Russia. It's unfortunate that the governments in Kyiv since 2014 have not been able to play exactly this game and have instead let the situation deteriorate into a war.
> I believe the fastest way out for Ukraine is to give Russia a guarantee that it will not pursue NATO membership (I understand this is all that Russia wants and has been asking since the 2014 coup that removed the Pro-Russia government),
It is not all Russia wants.
Russia has overtly states that the aim of their “special military operation” is to demilitarize Ukraine as well as to denazify it's government (which they describe as Nazis). So, openly, they want to disarm Ukraine and purge it's government of those Russia finds politically unacceptable.
They’ve also stated that Ukraine has no legitimacy as a state or even ethnic identity, that Ukrainians are Russia and Ukraine is stolen Russian territory, and Russian state media prematurely published and then silently deleted a victory announcement announcing that, with the liberation of Ukraine a new all-Russias union state of Russia (“Great Russia”), Ukraine (“Little Russia”), and Belarus, so it seems likely than the overt demilitarize and purge objective is, well, not the whole story.
I agree. My sentence should've been more specific: it's all that Russia "probably wants in order to stop this war" given that they are also probably very eager to stop this war as it's costing it dearly... anything they can take as a "victory" from now on should probably be enough to stop this war.
I think you are spot on, just to add to this, I understand why the Ukrainian military does not want to fight outside the cities, It would make them open target for Russian shelling. and the imbalance in forces would probably become more obvious.
Be very careful in what you believe. If the Russians wanted genocide (which I find, honestly, about as nonsense as Russians saying Ukraine has a Nazi governement), they wouldn't need to send troops in, right? They could just have bombed their cities indiscriminately from a safe distance. The Russian attacks are happening in the cities, it's true, but where do you think the Ukrainian military is?? Why didn't they fight the Russians outside the cities to avoid that? Have you heard of "protracted war"?