We seem to be doing our darndest in Ukraine to poke The Bear. Maybe we'll get both but I though "they" were going to wait until Trump was re-elected so they could pin the whole mess on him.
But TBF, the odds are pretty good, as it is an art form refined by the Russians over centuries, and taught to MAGA movement that they funded in the US (via the NRA), and then made home-grown by the Q-anon movement... so, the odds are pretty good of seeing such stuff
That's one narrative. If you choose to ignore the machinations of the US State Department before and through the Maidan uprising then what Russia is doing seems unprovoked and possibly even genocidal. It's amazing that in this age of speed-of-light communication the ability to suppress facts is as prevalent as it is. Personally I'm not rooting for either side, only for the killing and escalation to stop before the whole world gets pulled into it.
If you are “not rooting for either side, and would like to stop”, you support the aggressor. Like “not rooting for anyone and let’s stop where we are” in 1943 to allow nazi germany to keep their gains.
I’m Ukrainian, I live in Kyiv, so I’m sure I know what happened and what is happening here now much better than you.
I’m also fluent in Russian, and read their “news” targeted at domestic audience. Trust me (or if you don’t, just find yourself using speed-of-light communication) - they hate the US, despise Europeans, and would be happy to destroy lives of many more people if not their fail here.
The hell you aren't. "Neutrality" always favors the aggressor. And here, you are literally spreading Putin's rhetoric.
No one is "poking the bear". The bear is doing what it has historically done, violently attempt to expand its empire with a genocidal assault on it's neighbor's territory.
This has zero to do with The Former Guy, who would literally hand over Ukraine to Russia; remember he was first impeached for trying to blackmail Ukraine, withholding arms (such as Javelin anti-tank weapons) until Zelenskyy would falsely announce opening some fabricated investigation of his political opponent.
In this case the assault is at it's root being done because Putin cannot tolerate having his public see that a state former under Soviet rule is becoming successfully (small-"d") democratic, prosperous, and seeking to associate with Europe and the free world instead of Russia. The very real problem for Putin's administration is that his subject's seeing Ukraine's success is likely to provoke rebellion against his authoritarian rule. The problem that knowledge of Ukraine's success poses can be seen well in the Russian soldier's universal theft of toilets and painting on the walls "what gives you the right to live so well?". So, (knowledge of) Ukraine's success is an existential threat to the rule of Putin and the Oligarchs. Hence Russia's genocidal rhetoric, saying that they must eliminate the very idea of Ukranian existence, and their genocidal actions, from systematic rape and torture, stealing hundreds of thousands of children for "reeducation", etc.
Another key reason this is happening is that the west has in the past failed to respond. In Chechnyia, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas, and more,when Russia attacked, the west tried to avoid engaging. The result, that Russia was allowed to continue occupying those territories, and was not punished for repeated atrocities and likely war crimes, was seen as weakness and permission. So they did it again.
Unless it is stopped, it WILL continue. Russian spokesman, up to former Presidents still in the govt have explicitly made statements that the Baltics, Poland, and Germany have no right to exist, and that they should be nuking England.
Russia (along with other authoritarian/fascist states) is a literally an existential threat to the world of democratic nations. If not stopped in Ukraine, they WILL continue their aggression. And, China is watching very closely - if the west lets Ukraine fall, then they WILL attack Taiwan.
So, the question is, if we don't stop Russia now, when do we stop them? It would have been far better to have stopped them at Crimea. But, Obama didn't do that. So, do we stop them now, or in the Baltics, or in Poland? Or, do we wait for artillery to start falling on Berlin, or London, or Washington?
The cost of stopping them goes up at every step, both economically and in blood. It is more expensive now than it would have been in Syria or Crimea. But now is also incredibly cheap. Ukrainian military is literally doing all the heavy lifting, and we are spending low single-digit percentages of our DOD budget sending them third-shelf inventory. And Russia is now stopped dead in it's tracks and it's military capabilities to threaten the rest of the world are heavily degraded.
Providing arms for Ukraine to defend itself against genocide is the bargain of the century, and it is literally necessary to preserve democracy globally. The current POTUS deserves huge credit for leadership in stopping this aggression, and when it is finished will take it (i.e., no one is trying to pin anything on TFG)
> The hell you aren't. "Neutrality" always favors the aggressor. And here, you are literally spreading Putin's rhetoric.
Remember when George W. Bush gave his famous "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" speech? Pretty much every media outlet cited this as a classic example of a false dichotomy, one that ignored that nuance could be found on both sides and ignored the possibility, common in a lot of the world, that honestly don't give a crap one way or the other. If the [insert whatever term you want for the kinetic action in Ukraine] didn't involve the very real possibility of escalating into nuclear war then a lot of the world won't care. We never cared when it was groups of non-white people slaughtering each other in Africa or southeast Asia: it's pretty freaking racist to assert that we need to care and pick sides now.
>>Remember when George W. Bush gave his famous ...
Yes, I do. Just because that instance may have been a false dichotomy does not mean that all such assertion are.
In this case, we can literally look to 1: Russia's current tactics (systematic war crimes, targeting civilians, civilian infrastructure, systematic torture, rape, executions, harvesting children, etc.), 2: Russia's recent history (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas), 3: Russia's history over the last centuries of violent invasions and considering it's neighbors have no right to exist except under it's rule, 4: Russia's specific govt official's statements and statements of state-run media (Ukraine, Baltics, Poland have no right to exist, should be wiped out, etc. and open threats to all western nations), 5: Russia's open practice of asymmetric warfare fomenting divisions and fascist movements in democratic countries.
The result is only that Russia is a clear and present danger to democracies.
Allowing Russia to keep Ukraine's territory, and it's stolen children, and face no consequences for its systematic war crimes will only reward aggression AGAIN, and encourage it further.
It is a 100% legitimate dichotomy. It is literally the way Russia itself sees the situation. You allow them to rape, pillage, plunder, and generally take what they want, or you are against them. For civilized people, you are either allowing it, or you are against it.
Make the situation personal for you as it is for Ukarnaians. I'll invade your house, take over the bottom floor of your house, rape your daughter and wife, hold them hostage. Now, I demand to be able to stay. Do you think your neighbors and the cops and the courts should stay neutral? Who would that help? It sure as hell won't help get back your family and house.
You are, similarly, supporting the aggressor.
>>it's pretty freaking racist to assert that we need to care and pick sides now.
No, it was pretty freaking racist to assert that they did NOT need help.
And although this is closer to home and to our democracies, we absolutely should have been helping Chechnyia, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbas, etc. The fact is, that we likely did provide a bunch of covert help, and US troops are protecting the Kurdish part of Syria (and the Russian troops had a really bad day when they tried to screw w/ some US SpecOps guys), but it is not nearly as adequate as is being done in UKR, which is still inadequate and prolongs the torture and conflict.
Also, helping in UKR DOES secondarily help everyone by deterring this sort of aggression, which is currently looming over Taiwan (and if you don't think Xi is watching very carefully about what to do next, I'd like to talk with you about buying some "great" oceanfront property in Kansas).
>>escalating into nuclear war
Yes, there is the threat of escalation. The ONLY way to deal with that threat is to counter it and fight. If we yield to this or any such nuclear blackmail, it is simply an open invitation to more nuclear blackmail. We literally might as well just give the keys to the White House to Putin immediately and get it over with.
Plus, the fact is (based on public info only), that Russia has been warned of very immediate and severe consequences to even "harmless" threats (demonstration explosions, etc.), and their promptly behavior changed. They see what a bunch of motivated Ukranians using third-shelf inventory are doing to their military, and know that if the US and NATO get involved, their military's half-life will be measured in hours, and if they do anything real with nukes, their own lives are forefeit. They also can have only low confidence in their nuke arsenal even being usable, as rampant massive fraud and lack of maintenance is obvious in their military. So, yes, it is technically and rhetorically a threat, but in reality, it is not at all likely, especially in conventional actions on Ukranian territory, and NATO is being very explicit about keeping UKR fighting with one hand behind it's back and not venturing on Russian territory with our weapons.
Not even the US Marines at their strongest could repel an alien invasion. If that was going to happen it would just happen regardless of our relative strength or weakness.
