GivingEuropeASpook

Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won't be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.

I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.

I'm inclined to agree.

My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.

For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements "no". I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).

While I've been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.

it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation

Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).

what if....no you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?

This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.

...possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?

I mean, I don't think there's any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I'm sure there are people who'd want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we're already talking about the reverse.

I can't think of specific examples but there's definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to "political solutions" meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)

These aren't good or something I'm arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.

I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.

Me too, that's why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.

while I suppose it's not impossible that a 19(?) year old AOC was a CIA agent

I think this is a really salient point, not just in reference to the NGO work but in terms of her being a turncoat in general. I think there's a natural tendency to reframe how we look at someone's past when we grow disillusioned with someone because of their actions, but I don't think AOC set out to get elected with the express goal of misdirecting revolutionary sentiment into support for the future Biden Administration.

Damn if that isn't the biggest indicator of her about-face since getting elected

I've seen it brought up before that in the past when the US had a stronger socialist movement, it had people who ran and were elected to US Congress but then used their position subversively, and their terms were generally short-lived in the process. How I wish this was AOC – she seemed to abandon that once Trump was out of office.

What's the rule though?

I live for this sort of dunking

Generally when you're fighting a civil war...

If this was still like 2018, I'd be out there supporting the various brokered deals that included Russia at the table. Framing the current conflict as a civil war is inaccurate, as it lost the characteristics of a civil conflict when Russia attacked the rest of Ukraine in February 2022. What was a protracted, simmering war between a fraction of the Ukrainian army and Russian-backed Separatists on the fringes of the nation's territory, with a dynamic akin to plenty of regions around the world throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.

So if your position is supporting separatist movements except when they receive foreign backing, you're not going to find yourself supporting many separatist movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.

I wouldn't say that's my position. I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms, since it means the destruction of people's livelihoods, and heritages, which of course cost many lives in the process too. People here often talk about ending the war in Ukraine as fast as possible because of the violence, so wouldn't the morally and ethically consistent viewpoint be to support what would prevent war too, not to argue for or justify foreign interventionism? No war but class war, you know?

Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn't have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn't become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn't then ask to join the French Empire.

As an aside, France's support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we're to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn't gonna be good for Russia long term.

Subbed to both lol

Edit: unsubbed from History Legends after noticing a pattern of "anti-woke" comments from him and his weird view of colonialism (inferring that African countries shouldn't ask for reparations unless Arab countries are willing to do the same for Spain)

You changed the goalposts for what "support" means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn't what Russia needs.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned here or elsewhere that financial aid was being given to the Ukrainian government in order to keep their civil service paid. South Korea just approved some of that recently.

Whenever anyone in the West brings up "global support for Ukraine" that's what they're mostly talking about, I merely clarified that because people are operating on different definitions of what constitutes "support". When I consider "support for Ukraine" vs "support for Russia", I'm comparing money, arms, and diplomatic positions or comments made by a country's leadership. When I do so, I see:

• Countries supporting Ukraine with money and/or arms
• Countries that have condemned the war/invasion and nothing else, maintaining their existing relations with both Ukraine and Russia while also criticizing NATO in some cases
• Iran + the DPRK, plus maybe Belarus for allowing it's territory to be used

Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line at reflexively supporting anything the United States opposes? Like, I get that the US successfully re-aligned Ukraine's foreign policy over the last decade or two, an unequivocal and blatant expansion of US influence and control, and so a successful Russian invasion would result in undoing that American victory, but I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine being in Russia's sphere of influence for socialists, beyond the fact that Russia isn't the dominant world power. Is that really it? And if so, how is it beneficial to replace one imperialist domination with another?

Doesn't it matter that Russia is arguably more of a neoliberal state in line with the domestic social, economic and political agendas of far-right parties in the US, UK, and EU, than many Western countries currently?

You should check out Telegram and Youtube, you have numerous videos and photos of destroyed Ukrainian armor, drone strikes on radars and artillery, while analysts count everything.

I used to in the first few months of the invasion, but I decided I'd only try to keep up with any significant developments (like if a city changes hands or something new happens, like a particularly brazen drone strike) for the sake of my own mental health.

The brigades were already at most 50% of capacity before the offensive,

Which YouTube sources were saying this?