You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I think most people never thought Ukraine would win the war outright. Personally, I’ve never heard anyone say that they thought Ukraine would push Russia out entirely and the war would end. Even if Ukraine did secure all of its land, Russia would almost certainly continue fighting along the border to prevent it from joining any alliance like NATO. It seemed the best anyone hoped for is that there would be enough pressure applied to Russia that something changed within where they gave up on the war.
If Russia comes out of this conflict with any gains at all that could be construed as “worth it” for their side it will be an open invitation to keep invasions on the table as a method to apply again in the near future.
Russia is literally the biggest country in the world with massive natural resources and very low population density. The idea that Russia will sacrifice its relatively small population for the sake of additional territorial gains is preposterous.
They’re literally doing that right now, though
They’re fighting against NATO expansion to Russia’s border which they have been warning against for over a decade now. Even Stoltenberg admits this now:
Now why would they be against that? Is it because they want to be able to take back former Soviet states without having all of NATO fight back?
The same reason US would be against Russia turning Mexico into a battering ram against US. Meanwhile, the idea that Russia wants to take back former Soviet states is so utterly laughable. It already took Russia two years just to take on the NATO proxy in Ukraine. It’s pretty clear that it would be a far bigger effort to actually take on NATO directly. Anybody with a functioning brain can see that the whole idea is absurd. Yet, here you are…
NATO is a purely defensive alliance, not a battering ram. The only reason you’d be against it was if you planned on facing that defense.
The idea is hardly laughable. They took Crimea. They thought they could take more without resistance. They were wrong.
NATO has literally been expanding and invading countries for decades. Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria are just few examples. In fact, US currently occupies a larger portion of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine. Claiming that NATO is a defensive alliance is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
And let’s just look at a few facts about Crimea from a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
I thought Putin said it was because “Ukraine is a neo-nazi regime”?
No, wait, he said it was because the west were using Ukraine to base their weapons
Oh, nevermind, I forgot that there is no such thing as Ukraine, it’s all part of Russia
Oh, or is it because the west are gay paedophilic gender-neutral-god-worshipping heathens
Or was it because Ukraine was planning to pretend Russia nuked them first so that they could actually declare war on Russia
Ah, was it to defend Donetsk and Luhansk’s independence? Or are they part of Russia?
Or is it that Ukraine has a government with no control, where the streets of Kiev are a lawless purge?
I seem to have lost track of why he’s invading. Could you clarify for me?
Ukraine being a neo-nazi regime doing ethnic cleansing in Donbas and planning to host NATO weapons that can strike within Russia are precisely in line with the problem of NATO expansion. Incredible that you’re unable to understand how a single overarching problem can have multiple aspects to it. Hope that clarified things for you.
And how do the gay paedophile heretics fit into your overarching problem?
Wait till you find out what the banderite stance on gay pedophile heretics is.
