Al! posted:

youre either with the good guys or the bad guys

Ytlaya posted:

I think the barrier people like this new guy have is that they are completely and utterly unwilling to accept any outcome that does not "punish the bad guy."

Vomik posted:

agree somewhat although personally I’d wager whatever end state America was working towards would have been a humanitarian disaster far in excess of the invasion if allowed to progress unfettered

crepeface posted:

the primitive desert religion that lies at the root of the mind of the occidental holds that subjective morality is to be judged by some phantasmal higher power. in the modern form, divine authourity is replaced with their ruling institutions, complete with perfect moral judgment. denial of their will is therefore blasphemy.

Neurolimal posted:

The 2014 war was effective because not only was Ukraine ill-prepared for war, not only were none of the power brokers expecting a war, but also half of Ukraine genuinely respects Russia and wants closer ties with Russia. They bribed a lot of officials and basically annexed Crimea overnight, but this wouldn't have been possible if that half of Ukraine did not see Russian control as neutral at worst. Look at basically any demographic map of Ukraine before 2014. If they're Eastern, then they publicly declare their main tongue russian, voted for Yanukovych, believe the USSR was a force for good (if not better than current Ukraine), have more industrialization, and see Russia favorably. The complete opposite is true for the Western half.

Neurolimal posted:

Ukraine was not respecting the Minsk agreement. They were shelling civillian centers in DPR for eight years prior to this war. Zelensky did make an early attempt to respect it, but was rebuffed by the nazi groups who held more power (both in military strength & in political clout among Western Ukraine), and learned his lesson.

Neurolimal posted:

DPR likely did what they could to pressure Russia to do something about the constant shelling. I also doubt that it was enough to move Russia. Something within Russian intelligence convinced them (correctly or incorrectly) to invade, even with unfavorable weather conditions.

Neurolimal posted:

1. I do not believe Russia is interested in conquest through war, rather that they do not balk at war to secure its external allies (Syria, Ukraine, Georgia)

Neurolimal posted:

A victory in Ukraine does not mean Poland nor the rest of Europe is imperiled.

Neurolimal posted:

Defending North Korea from NATO was worth this.

Neurolimal posted:

I think a lot of CSPAM, and especially this thread, would agree with this. Most people here are not eagerly cheering on Russia.

Cuttlefush posted:

lol christ

redneck nazgul posted:

war bad

Punkin Spunkin posted:

Don't ask, don't heil

Al! posted:

hmm hmm ok

war is bad

Budzilla posted:

Many Ukrainians supported joining the EU. Yanukovych made campaign promises to continue the accession process into joining the EU but he tore that up and signed the agreement with the customs union and this kicked off Maidian.

Most of the deaths in the Donbas occurred in the first 2 years. More civilians died in MH17 than the time period of 2017-2021.

Not sure why you think Russia (or to be specific Putin) is acting in good faith and not being opportunistic with a bad read on the situation.

A war against their ally, Georgia. With allies like this who needs enemies? It doesn't matter if you don't believe Russia is interested conquest through war. The LPR, DNR have been annexed in to Russia and so have the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

I agree. I also didn't think Putin would be stupid enough to expand the war. But the situation was bad enough for Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO.

North Korea invaded South Korea the year before NATO was founded and the last time I checked many countries that have never been part of NATO were involved in the Korean war.

That's a relief after reading your twisted view on the situation!

Al! posted:

it seems like there should be an immediate ceasefire and then there should be a realistic long term plan for peace

Xaris posted:

there was a peace plan last april then boris johnson and joe biden blew it up because peace = gay = anti-american

Al! posted:

hmm hmm ok

war is bad

Al! posted:

hmm hmm ok

war is bad

Al! posted:

Budzilla posted:

Most of the deaths in the Donbas occurred in the first 2 years.

Budzilla posted:

Many Ukrainians supported joining the EU. Yanukovych made campaign promises to continue the accession process into joining the EU but he tore that up and signed the agreement with the customs union and this kicked off Maidian.

Budzilla posted:

Most of the deaths in the Donbas occurred in the first 2 years. More civilians died in MH17 than the time period of 2017-2021.

Budzilla posted:

Many Ukrainians supported joining the EU. Yanukovych made campaign promises to continue the accession process into joining the EU but he tore that up and signed the agreement with the customs union and this kicked off Maidian.

quote:

Most of the deaths in the Donbas occurred in the first 2 years. More civilians died in MH17 than the time period of 2017-2021.

quote:

Not sure why you think Russia (or to be specific Putin) is acting in good faith and not being opportunistic with a bad read on the situation.

quote:

A war against their ally, Georgia. With allies like this who needs enemies? It doesn't matter if you don't believe Russia is interested conquest through war. The LPR, DNR have been annexed in to Russia and so have the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts.

quote:

North Korea invaded South Korea the year before NATO was founded and the last time I checked many countries that have never been part of NATO were involved in the Korean war.

quote:

While technically North Korea invaded South Korea, History is a lot more nuanced than that, as prior to the invasion:
- Elections were held only in areas controlled by US forces, to dictate the government of Korea, in which only one presidential candidate actually ran (the other, Kim Koo, boycotted the election as a sham, yet still obtained 13 of the 196 votes)
- Said elections occuring in the face of continued pressure within the nation, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations for a mutual withdrawal to allow Korea to self-realize their government and the then-growing desire to withdraw our troops (albeit on our terms, and with an allied government)
- Massive protests & riots were held against this election & its subsequent government, which in some areas such as Jeju featured a ratio of 86%-14% civilian deaths (US-backed Militants to Insurgents)
- The resulting government being so shambolic that The CIA commented on their brutality & incompetence:

- That both Sung and Rhee expressed desires to conquer the other prior to the war (Chapter 5 covers a large share of this)
- That there had been several clashes, raids, seizures of territory prior to the war along the border, instigated by both sides
- that roughly 100,000 Koreans had died as a result of the clashes, uprisings, brutal repression, and division of utilities
- That prior to the war Kim Il-Sung made peace overtures which were rejected by Rhee; the nature of the overtures is unclear, implication that it involved a Korea-wide election & then a guidance conference in Haeju, but the only source I found was Weathersby's paper, which is more reserved. The proposal was made in bad faith (Sung is fairly adamant in a military approach in his conversations with Stalin, and he mentions that he expects the proposal to be rejected), but it speaks to Rhee's disinterest in a peaceful resolution.

The election & subsequent suppression of dissent, the rise of an unpopular but militarily empowered autocrat, as many within US intelligence had predicted, led to a volatile state of affairs that was inevitably going to lead to war. North Korea had the immediate military advantage & opted to flex it before the US could finish training & arming the Rhee government, under the assumption that the UN & its nations would observe this to be a civil war.

Neurolimal posted:

North Korea would absolutely have been the better government for the nation.

crepeface posted:

and thinks it's great evidence for their "uhhhh, ackshully most civilian deaths was early on" point?

Neurolimal posted:

They were shelling civillian centers in DPR for eight years prior to this war.

Neurolimal posted:

Also a strange reply; how many casualties should be necessary for the DPR/LPR to object to constant shelling & a lack of Russian support?

Neurolimal posted:

South Korea under Rhee was heinous, and North Korea would absolutely have been the better government for the nation.

Budzilla posted:

It was a direct response to this

If civilian centers were actively been shelled for 8 years and the numbers from the source I posted accounted for all deaths on both sides of contact in an area with a population (LPR+DNR) of 3.5 million. Is less than a plane full of civilians it must mean the UA must have been super lovely at targeting civilian centers or it was a drum up by Russian propaganda?

My contention was that the UA was actively targeting civilians in your post. Civilian causalities are a tragedy no matter what side they are from but if we have a conflict and one of them is "actively shelling civilian centers" maybe how you frame the situation is hyperbolic when for 3 years the total civilian death toll is ~25 deaths a year in an area of more than 3 million people?

Rhee was terrible fortunately he was eventually rid of. Although making peace overtures then invading SK probably has people in Seoul since then thinking that we can't trust Kim Il-Sung.