The fact that Putin is the one who started this war? This war wouldn’t be a thing if a) Russia didn’t annex Crimea, b) Russia didn’t send “totally not Russian troops” into Donbas and c) Russia didn’t do a full invasion of Ukraine. Not to mention this war would be over tomorrow if Putin withdrew his troops.
Putin started this and Putin can end this, it’s all his choice.
I’m not asking for justifications. It’s just so weird to me that people apparently think that
Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)
Putin doesn’t need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don’t do shit without reason)
And the moment I’m trying to understand the situation a bit better, I’m called a Putin troll, a fascist and get downvoted into oblivion.
Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government. Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.
Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)
But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don’t qualify for the election. The other “suitable” electoral candidates exists solely to keep the up the appearance of democracy. The Duma also exists to keep up appearances. And the reason Putin has a lot of support is because he has manufactured consent through the state owned media. He’s also sowing indifference in the opposition by publicly eliminating opponents to indicate that this is what happens if you oppose him. He is ruling unopposed.
Putin doesn’t need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don’t do shit without reason)
What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him. If you have an autocratic leader the state does what the leader wants. Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that’s the only reason the Russian state needs.
Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government
“Pro-EU” is one way of putting it. Ukraine became an economic and militaristic threat to Russia.
Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.
Sorry, this kind of narrative is again way too much “great man theory” for my tastes.
But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don’t qualify for the election.
Yes, it’s a very obvious example of power politics in electoral politics. But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him. Putin is acting in the name of a sovereign nation. Individualising his goals and behaviors (acting as if it’s the whims of a person) is not helping if you want to understand the situation.
What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him.
And there are reasons for him to do so. It’s a strategy to further his goals. I’m not claiming that the strategy is good or that I align with the goals, but the are there and it’s important not to lose track of them.
Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that’s the only reason the Russian state needs.
Imperialism meaning to extend the power of a nation for its own benefit beyond its borders. This can be in militaristic nature by invasion, but also in economic nature via economical warfare.
Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn’t be such a big issue).
I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west’s imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can’t condone.
If Russia loses, Ukraine’s economy will be so crippled and its population will be so decimated that it has no other choice than to take credit and be exploited from European companies. It will be like what happened in Greece, but 100 times worse. Selensky will be ok, as he’ll most likely get some position at some board, but in any case: the Ukrainian people (the people whose interests are most aligned with mine) will lose in any case.
Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that’s arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you’re willing to view the events in good faith
But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him.
What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putins allies but didn’t agree with the invasion? You’re quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.
Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn’t be such a big issue).
The US dropping out isn’t a big issue because of economics issues, it’s because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid. Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.
I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west’s imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can’t condone.
And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.
Now Ukraine either ends up under the iron thumb of Russia (much like Belarus) or Ukraine ends up economically dependent on the EU. Of the two choices IMO it’s pretty clear which is a more favorable outcome.
Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that’s arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you’re willing to view the events in good faith
I disagree. I’m far from an expert on Euromaidan, but from what I gathered, the perspective of the Donbas is widely ignored by most western media. I only managed to find articles in German, so you’ll have to excuse me, but if you’re interested, you’ll probably find a way to translate those:
Those articles suggest that the Euromaidan was not only a “pro EU” thing, but can be understood as an attempt of ultranationalist Ukrainians to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. The same journalist said in an interview (sorry, in German as well) that she interviewed pro Maidan activists in 2014 and that she can’t imagine that the rebellion was this coordinated without the possibility of outside forces supplying training and resources to the combatants.
What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putin’s allies but didn’t agree with the invasion? You’re quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.
Sorry if I failed to make my point clear. My point isn’t that Putin isn’t an autocrat. My point is that Putin is acting as a state’s sovereign. He’s not acting out of his private interest, but out of the interest of a nation.
The US dropping out isn’t a big issue because of economics issues, it’s because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid.
Never said that it was.
Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.
Yeah, the independence of the Ukrainian state. I don’t think that the interests of the Ukrainian state align with the Ukrainian people. Especially considering that the latter are currently dying in the name of the former. And if the former gets its “independence”, it will have done so at an incredible cost of human lives. And I doubt that all the debt from military aid (those aren’t “presents” from the west) will lead to fulfilling lives for Ukraine’s population in the future.
Yes, the “bad guys” are bad. But the “good guys” don’t act out of the kindness of their hearts, either.
And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.
Their “pawn-ness” started way before 2022, when NATO did their sable-rattling in Ukraine. They can’t afford a neutral position. Just like Taiwan can’t and Vietnam or Cuba couldn’t.
What reason is that exactly, then?
The fact that Putin is the one who started this war? This war wouldn’t be a thing if a) Russia didn’t annex Crimea, b) Russia didn’t send “totally not Russian troops” into Donbas and c) Russia didn’t do a full invasion of Ukraine. Not to mention this war would be over tomorrow if Putin withdrew his troops.
Putin started this and Putin can end this, it’s all his choice.
So… any idea why “Putin” supposedly did all that?
I’m not asking for justifications. It’s just so weird to me that people apparently think that
And the moment I’m trying to understand the situation a bit better, I’m called a Putin troll, a fascist and get downvoted into oblivion.
Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government. Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.
But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don’t qualify for the election. The other “suitable” electoral candidates exists solely to keep the up the appearance of democracy. The Duma also exists to keep up appearances. And the reason Putin has a lot of support is because he has manufactured consent through the state owned media. He’s also sowing indifference in the opposition by publicly eliminating opponents to indicate that this is what happens if you oppose him. He is ruling unopposed.
What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him. If you have an autocratic leader the state does what the leader wants. Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that’s the only reason the Russian state needs.
“Pro-EU” is one way of putting it. Ukraine became an economic and militaristic threat to Russia.
Sorry, this kind of narrative is again way too much “great man theory” for my tastes.
Yes, it’s a very obvious example of power politics in electoral politics. But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him. Putin is acting in the name of a sovereign nation. Individualising his goals and behaviors (acting as if it’s the whims of a person) is not helping if you want to understand the situation.
And there are reasons for him to do so. It’s a strategy to further his goals. I’m not claiming that the strategy is good or that I align with the goals, but the are there and it’s important not to lose track of them.
Imperialism meaning to extend the power of a nation for its own benefit beyond its borders. This can be in militaristic nature by invasion, but also in economic nature via economical warfare.
Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn’t be such a big issue).
I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west’s imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can’t condone.
If Russia loses, Ukraine’s economy will be so crippled and its population will be so decimated that it has no other choice than to take credit and be exploited from European companies. It will be like what happened in Greece, but 100 times worse. Selensky will be ok, as he’ll most likely get some position at some board, but in any case: the Ukrainian people (the people whose interests are most aligned with mine) will lose in any case.
Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that’s arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you’re willing to view the events in good faith
What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putins allies but didn’t agree with the invasion? You’re quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.
The US dropping out isn’t a big issue because of economics issues, it’s because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid. Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.
And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.
Now Ukraine either ends up under the iron thumb of Russia (much like Belarus) or Ukraine ends up economically dependent on the EU. Of the two choices IMO it’s pretty clear which is a more favorable outcome.
I disagree. I’m far from an expert on Euromaidan, but from what I gathered, the perspective of the Donbas is widely ignored by most western media. I only managed to find articles in German, so you’ll have to excuse me, but if you’re interested, you’ll probably find a way to translate those:
https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/mehr-aufstand-wagen/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/wir-haetten-schon-auf-der-krim-angreifen-muessen/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/rechtsfreier-raum/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/charkow-terror-gegen-regimekritiker/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/ich-will-keinen-faschismus-vor-meiner-haustuer/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/wir-bezahlen-mit-unserem-blut-fuer-die-wirtschaftskrise-europas/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/nichts-dringlicher-als-frieden/
Those articles suggest that the Euromaidan was not only a “pro EU” thing, but can be understood as an attempt of ultranationalist Ukrainians to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. The same journalist said in an interview (sorry, in German as well) that she interviewed pro Maidan activists in 2014 and that she can’t imagine that the rebellion was this coordinated without the possibility of outside forces supplying training and resources to the combatants.
Even the Atlantic Council claimed that “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence” in 2018. I think it would be a stretch to accuse that think tank of Russian propaganda.
Sorry if I failed to make my point clear. My point isn’t that Putin isn’t an autocrat. My point is that Putin is acting as a state’s sovereign. He’s not acting out of his private interest, but out of the interest of a nation.
Never said that it was.
Yeah, the independence of the Ukrainian state. I don’t think that the interests of the Ukrainian state align with the Ukrainian people. Especially considering that the latter are currently dying in the name of the former. And if the former gets its “independence”, it will have done so at an incredible cost of human lives. And I doubt that all the debt from military aid (those aren’t “presents” from the west) will lead to fulfilling lives for Ukraine’s population in the future.
Yes, the “bad guys” are bad. But the “good guys” don’t act out of the kindness of their hearts, either.
Their “pawn-ness” started way before 2022, when NATO did their sable-rattling in Ukraine. They can’t afford a neutral position. Just like Taiwan can’t and Vietnam or Cuba couldn’t.