| > What source do you get the 20% from? The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0]. > As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it. The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it. You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest. More explanation from Carnegie[2]: > The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September. I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window. > Based on the personal attacks at the end, Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. --- [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain.... [1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian... [2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585 More: - https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continu... |
I lean towards promoting a solution that doesn't turn this invasion into WW3. Preferably a solution that results in fewer deaths. That does also include worldwide deaths that for example may stem from the financial fallout of the war itself. As well as a comparison of lives saved/saveable using the money being spent.
I'm very aware this is a privileged position that I can justify while living in Canada. Knowing I would find it incredibly difficult if not impossible to maintain my position if the conflict was localized. I like to believe I would still lean to societal benefit, but for that I have zero confidence.
I primarily ponder on the options allowing for an eventual de-escalation being limited or even non-existent. Is there a route to an end of the invasion that you see as viable? What is needed to get there and who do you think could make it happen?
Thank you again for the informative response. I've come out with better information than I had this morning.