[michaelmrose]

The Russians armed separatists and criminals to oppose the democratically elected government of Ukraine installed in 2019 via election not via the conflict in 2014. Ukraine's lawful resistance to criminals attempting to set up their own fiefdom on Ukrainian lands with Russian guns is thin justification for the subsequent invasion.

To put it blandly it doesn't matter whether you think Bush win over Gore was legitimate. Biden was legitimately elected and Washington state has no right to form its own nation. If the Canadians funneled tanks, guns, and soldiers to such folks we would certainly shoot people to stop such a takeover. Such shootings wouldn't provide legitimate cause for the forces of flannel to make a fast break for DC to overturn our entire government.

[EGreg]

This is why I am a libertarian. Regular people don’t want to kill each other, but these memes cause their governments to perpetuate violence. Literally everything about these concepts and games is not worth harming millions of people. And if you were in the war zone, you’d want an end to the stupid conflict. But people who aren’t, seem to think nothing of bringing violence and volunteering other people to die for some geopolitical concept justigied by some allegory where countries are anthropomorphosized.

Just to illustrate: when Ukraine and Russia were part of one federation, the same exact piece of land, Crimea changed hands from Russia to Ukraine. But back then they weren’t independent countries and it wasn’t a “matter of territorial integrity”, but just an administrative change involving road signs and local flags etc. so no one killed each other over it. Today, lots of people would support Ukraine and her allies introducing violence to Crimea, a region that has none, in order to “retake” it.

I find this obscene. Humans just want to live peace and security, go to work, date, love, etc. When push comes to shove, this or that flag isn’t such a big deal to regular humans, and historically they have changed a lot so why kill for it? But the current international system is based on Countries with borders that are supposed to be eternal. For this principle, people now are ready to support killing in a never ending war because “what if someone broke into your house and stole…”

Kosovo set a precedent. I would of course like to see Catalonia, Kurdistan get at least some more autonomy after their referendums. I’d like tk see Hong Kong get it too, and HN was sympathetic to those guys because we see just how different China was to HK after 100 years of being a British protectorate.

Well, autonomy isn’t very bad for the host country and the Minsk II agreements gave Ukraine sovereignty and control over all its borders. Why not just accept this diplomatic solution? Ukraine did, but now we learn that both Ukrainian presidents “never intended” to fulfil it. Why? It is maddening to me. The people of Ukraine suffer because of the political class, and I include Putin in that.

[michaelmrose]

The people of Ukraine don't want their country to surrender the lands they live in to the monsters that are torturing and raping their sons and daughters. By and large that whinging is coming entirely from commentators bemoaning the cost of war over coffee at their kitchen tables. Nor do the people of Russia by and large want peace the overwhelming majority support sending their sons and daughters to murder Ukrainians.

You dishonestly frame the prior takeover effected by treachery and threats of mass murder as an administrative change involving road signs and flags. Should a housebreaker invade your home and evict you by threatening to slaughter your family your eviction wouldn't be a peaceful administrative change in ownership just because the violence is threatened instead of realized.

Despite this Crimea wouldn't be on the table had Russia not decided to take the rest of Ukraine. Should Russia wish to protect these folks from war they ought to start talking terms now.

[EGreg]

There is nothing dishonest about my framing of the Crimea transfer FROM RUSSIA to Ukraine. I described it accurately but you misunderstood what I said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_So...

I would prefer to get my overview of what “the people of Ukraine want” from actual polls conducted, not what people in the West simply assert. Same with Russia, India, China, etc. And the stats are clear:

1. Ukrainians didn’t want NATO during and after George W Bush pushed for Ukraine to be in NATO. If you care about what Ukrainians want then explain this “open door policy” where you shove countries through the door kicking and screaming https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n...

2. The people who live in Eastern and Southern Ukraine are only 56-58% supporting continuing the war. A very far cry from your claim that “Ukraine wants to continue the war”, much less invade Crimea. It is to be expected that the West of Ukraine on the other hand is happy to volunteer the Easterners for more meat grinder. It’s easier when you don’t have to live under daily bombings.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471155/charts-russia-...

3. Crimea shouldn’t be on any tables. We know how Crimea voted — they wanted to be INDEPENDENT of Ukraine, since 1991:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea_in_the_post-Soviet_er...

Somehow people don’t care about Crimea’s sovereignty, only Ukraine’s. But in 2014 they voted again for Independence from Ukraine. That is not surprising! If the OSCE agreed to oversee it, the legitimacy may have been enough to make it happen — like Kosovo. But OSCE refused.

That doesn’t mean Ukraine gets to bomb Crimea, does it?

[michaelmrose]

Of what relevance is it what percentage wanted to join NATO in 2010? NATO expansion didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. Nor did internal conflict over the disposition of Crimea force Russia to invade. You steadily bring up irrelevant complexities to paper over the simple truth. Russia is solely at fault and only Russia can end it. Until then let the western world continue to support Ukraine until Russia breaks.

[EGreg]

I have been answering you point by point, showing you where you're wrong.

If a solid majority of Ukrainians do not want to join NATO in the period 1990-2010, but Bush pushed for it in 2007, then a lot of questions arise:

1) Why does NATO push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO?

2) Why did they not welcome Russia as well? Was it more corrupt than Ukraine, or less democratic than Turkey, an existing member?

Most people outside the Western bubble know the real reason. The goal was always to gradually surround Russia with NATO bases. Russia needed to be the enemy. If Russia was part of NATO, then NATO wouldn't have an enemy to defend against. Also then Europe's security would be very strong, and there would be no need for USA's weapons to keep the peace. And the bases USA has around the world would have to be reduced, too.

In doing so, US presidents ignored Russian presidents (including Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev.) They also ignored everyone's warnings, and even the original architects of the USSR containment strategy:

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...

Clinton ignored 50 top foreign policy experts:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...

Bush ignored pretty much everybody, including his own ambassadors and experts:

https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-preve...

I hope this addresses what relevance NATO expansion has. Every expert knew the predictable outcome. They said it for DECADES.

And even today, billions of people around the world think like me ... according to polls:

https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib...

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat...

You can repeat the words "unprovoked and unjustified" many times but that's just a verbatim phrase that you've been taught to repeat, obviously it was provoked. NATO expansion was systematic provocation. As was buzzing airspace. As was the rhetoric and the drone warfare, which worked so well in Nagorno Karabakh against Armenia. And so on.

Obviously if the shoe was on the other foot, USA would do the same. In fact, they did, and does often. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example.

USA takes far less provocation to attack. Sometimes none. Like in Laos, halfway around the world. No other country does that. You seem to operate on a complete double-standard.

So no, Russia isn't solely at fault. Russia can surely end it, but the consequences will be that Russia will be surrounded in short order by NATO bases, and in a decade or so, nuclear weapons pointed straight at Moscow. Maybe even broken up.

While as a libertarian, I don't have a horse in this race, I can tell you that no country (especially not USA) would ever allow anything close to that to happen. Russia does not want Ukraine to become a NATO member.

[michaelmrose]

Nuclear weapons would have been enough of a detergent for the foreseeable future. Invading increased security not one whit nor was it expected to. It was expected to increase wealth and power at the expense of decreasing security.

In fact invasion has actually done more to advance the cause of NATO than the US could have done. They are already and were always going to be surrounded by enemies due to being surrounded by former vassal states. Russia was never going to be in NATO because it's primarily a defensive alliance vs Russia. Nobody wants to give Russia a vote in an alliance that exists for mutual defense against Russia.

Who gives a fuck what the Indian man on the street thinks? Greater truth isn't decided by surveying as many ignorant people as possible. Shall we next survey Kentucky or London to achieve critical rube mass? Worse India profits greatly from cheap Russian gas. May as well ask farmers about the wisdom of subsidies or johns about whether prostitution ought to be legalized.

This is all more chaff.

This conflict exists so that Russia can trade it's citizens blood for power. Nothing else necessitates it. It serves no other end. It has no other interest.

Every other end is damaged by this war save one.

You go on without end while ignoring this fundamental fact. If you can't address it properly then you may see yourself out of the conversation.