leinsterforever wrote: ↑October 29th, 2022, 4:48 pm
To me it looks overwhelmingly likely that their main motivation is opposition to American militarism, coupled with cynicism about the West always being well-intentioned.
Lots of people are cynical about Western intentions, I am. This is a weak straw man argument. Even if it were true that the Americans had an agenda their actions can be viewed in isolation.
Questioning motivation works both ways.
Other than anachronistic American animosity to the USSR what some long term plan to threaten Moscow with missile bases it doesn't need what is the USA's motivation supposed to be.
I'm not saying Ukraine is attacking Russia. It's self-evident that it's the other way round.
Why would The White House not give assurances to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO then? That would have gone a long way in calming tensions. The West aren't interested in defusing the situation. Their aim is to hurt Russia as much as possible.
This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The US could have sent war planes, longer range missiles and other offensive weaponry any time they wanted to escalate. This war has been immensely damaging to the US economy and politically damaging to their leaders.
A promise that America would not come to the aid of Ukraine (or Taiwan) would only encourage aggression, obviously.
There doesn't have to be a threat of expansion into Russian territory. The threat of expansion up to the border is enough. What do you think the US would make of a hostile military alliance moving in to Mexico, say?
This level of hawkishness is at odds with dovish tones elsewhere. Justifying extremely brutal aggression by Russia while attacking moderate assistance by America seriously undermines credibility. Quisling f%~k is a succinct expression for the distrust that critical thinkers may well show. For reference I don't think that America should annex Mexico.
The Russian perspective is that a US-backed coup removed a President who was favourable towards them. Yanukovych had turned more towards Russia, turning down signing an EU treaty. When there was unrest Yanukovych committed to bringing elections forward. Stephen F. Cohen said that Putin contacted Obama to see would he agree to and back this arrangement. Obama said 'yes' but then shortly afterwards the government is overthrown and the US backs it. What are the Russians supposed to think?
Plan B
ronk wrote: ↑October 28th, 2022, 3:28 amIt’s Russia that doesn’t want a free Ukraine, they wanted to isolate them to make it easier to dominate them.
Well, duh.
And you defend them for some reason...
Has there ever been a war fought where there weren't atrocities committed on both sides?
All's fair in love and war. LOL.
Accepting this argument would invalidate the concept of war crimes and excuse all behaviour.
This is naive in the extreme, and flat out wrong. If peace was the goal for everyone there would be far more of a push for diplomacy.
No it isn't. Having siezed significant early territory Putin could easily have offered to withdraw with a promise of a legally binding deal not to join NATO and UN Peacekeepers to prevent the neo-Nazi atrocities that were part of the pretext for invasion. The Ukrainians would have bitten their hands off for that deal while the tanks were still sitting outside Kiev and probably for some time afterwards. It'd be a good deal now, and would coincide with their war aims. They just want the Russians to go home.
It's Putin who doesn't want that. Putin wants territory, he wants offshore gas fields and black sea ports and valuable farm land and industrial prizes like the largest steel works in Europe and millions of people and to be the head of a Russian Empire.