Not sure what war you're referring to, but if it's the one in Ukraine, that didn't come out of a conclave of elites looking for an answer for the "stress of collapse." It came out of the mind of ONE particular elite named Vladimir Putin.
Not sure what war you're referring to, but if it's the one in Ukraine, that didn't come out of a conclave of elites looking for an answer for the "stress of collapse." It came out of the mind of ONE particular elite named Vladimir Putin.
You do know this is the oldest trick in the imperialist playbook, right? Foment a civil war, then point to the civil war YOU started as justification for sending in military "advisors" or just all-out invading, It's exactly what the US did in Vietnam, and then it was the worst thing ever, but when the Russians do it it's AWESOME.
If any outsiders started the civil war in Ukraine, it was the US. And just as in Vietnam, it was indeed wrong. Putin instantly accepted the triumph of the wolfangel and sonnenraad in Kyiv. By the way, it is not at all clear you object to the US war on Vietnam. But defeat is an orphan...
A separatist insurgency that wants to break off from Ukraine to join Russia, using Russian-supplied weapons. WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK RUSSIA WAS INVOLVED?
Russia was involved in one sense, Putin immediately recognized the coup regime, which served to limit efforts to restore the elected government. It is not clear that the so-called separatists were actually separatists committing to fusion with the Russian Federation. Certainly the bombardment for years of ethnic Russians/Russian language speakers increased any such tendencies. Yet Putin refused to recognize any unity. Indeed, Minsk II openly committed the Donbas governments to Ukraine, albeit with autonomy and guarantees of rights you would deny them. But Minsk II was a fraud designed to buy time for further war.
It was the Kyiv regime which decided ethnic Russians/Russian speakers were not equal. An issue you have ignored, the right to national self determination, favors the Russians. Old boundaries cannot be sacred, especially given that imperialism freely ignores them when it wants to (Vietnam, Korea, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Sudan, the PRC, for glaring examples.)
You are not a consistent anti-imperialist, you are consistently pro-imperialist. Enough of this, no one else is paying attention anyhow.
It's like Donald Trump's fanboys explaining how he was never found guilty of rape, just sexual assault. It wears on you, having to explain the difference all the time.
I understand, it must be tiring always having to explain why the country that sent its tanks rolling over the border of another country wasn't actually doing an invasion.
How and why did the U.S., in 2014, start a civil war in Ukraine? Wikipedia says,тАЭThe war began in April 2014, when a commando unit headed by Russian citizen Igor Girkin seized Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. The Ukrainian military launched an operation against them. The war continued until subsumed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. тАЬ
Ask Victoria Nuland how and why she was picking the new leaders of the coup government? For that matter, explain why the US-dominated IMF gave preferential treatment to Ukraine to effectively finance the war? And it would be honest of you to explain why the first act of the coup government was to attack the Russian language speakers with discriminatory language?
US figures openly boasted of their money being well spent on NGOs years before in supporting the coup for years before. The implicit claim that the Party of Regions was a Russian trojan horse is tendentious. Your implicit assumption that US policy is obviously driven by moral principle is merely conformity. I am not privy to the secret counsels of the imperialists though, so I am unashamed cannot reliably detail their true motives and operational goals.
Recognizing the right of nations to self-determination means accepting that Ukrainians may wish to have "their" own entirely separate country but by the very same principle that does not mean they have the right to majority ethnic Russian/Russian language speaking areas. Supporting he imperialist decision that this particular boundary is sacred, unlike others pro-imperialists like you support revising, forcibly if necessary, isn't moral, it's merely obedience.
Again the right of nations to self-determination means the right to national unity. It was Kyiv that decided Russians were not part of the new Ukraine. That raised the issue of which nation the majority ethnic Russian/Russian language speakers actually belonged to. The insistence they should be inferior citizens in Ukraine is effectively the insistence the Ukrainians have the right of conquest. The right of nations to self determination favors the Russians. Only a selective endorsement of existing boundaries stands in opposition...but that principle is opposed to the right of nations to self determination.
As it is, your claim is like saying the US Civil War started with the terrorist John Brown seizing Harper's Ferry. It didn't because the US military in the person of Robert E. Lee and his troops quickly defeated the liberators. If you were consistent you would dismiss Brown as a terrorist too. In Ukraine, the military split. The bulk of the Donetsk and Lugansk militias were from Ukraine., just as Brown wasn't just some random white guy imposing his Yankee will on hapless victims. Kharkov nearly went over as well, by the way. Odessa was kept "loyal" by an atrocity, the fascists setting fire to the trades union building, however much you may have enjoyed that. There was no mass invasion of the Donbas by Russian troops.
(The Russian forces who were massively engaged in saving Crimea from the coup were already in Crimea. Mounting an invasion of new territory does not happen quickly. Remember how long it took to prepare the Iraq invasion. There was no war in Crimea precisely because the Ukrainian forces there acceded. It is not even certain that was due to force majeure. There really was separatist feeling in Crimea, something which dated back to the very formation of independent Ukraine, as you should acknowledge.)
Girkin/Strelkov was not an agent of Putin, as evidenced by his later imprisonment by "Putin." He did not succeed by himself, but with the help of Ukrainians. Again, the fact that Putin scotched any later pleas for unification matters. For that matter, the protection of the property of Ukrainian oligarchs like Akhmetov shows a substantive commitment towards economic unity with Kyiv.
Last and least, relying on wikipedia on any controversial matter is risky, to say the least. Using it to apologize for fascism is in my opinion deplorable.
If there's a civil war in a neighboring country, that's a permission slip to invade? Good to know. Sorry Canada or Mexico didn't exercise the option when they had the chance.
Canada wasn't independent at that time. There most certainly were powerful forces in England advocating open intervention (the high point was the notorious Trent affair.) Given the eventual disparity in naval forces, the English recognition of Confederate belligerency ended up helping the Union.....but that was in no sense friendly.
Mexico was invaded by the French, English and Spanish at the period and in no position to intervene. But during the Mexican revolution, the US did intervene in many ways, including Pershing's military incursions.
Plainly I do not belong to this commentariat and have canceled my subscription so will not be tempted to reply to SOMETHING IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET when September comes.
There are multiple interconnected wars, preparations for expanding said wars, and blockades, as well as increasing use of things like cyberwarfare, lawfare, assassination, interference in internal affairs of other nations. In my judgment the world has already begun hybrid WWIII. It looks like neither WWI nor WWII, but then, why should it?
Also, the word answer was in scare quotes because of the fundamental irrationality of using war to pursue narrow short term interests regardless. In the end the answer isn't even an answer because in the end war won't work and will actively militate against other courses that might. The nonsense about a conclave is yours, seemingly an attempt to imply a conspiracy theory?
But a conspiracy of one is as irrational as most conspiracy theories. And it is still an elite "answer" in effect agreeing with me, unless you mean to imply that the personal wickedness of Putin is a world-historical force. The war began in 2014 with a coup against the legal government and proceeded with a civil war marked largely by Kyiv government shelling of civilian targets in the Donbas. The supposed author immediately acceded to the coup (which incidentally proves Putin really does have no more problem with Ukrainian fascists that you do) and did not intervene for eight years. The price for that is generally estimated at about 14 000 dead, also not a problem for you.
There was a coup in Iraq that installed Saddam Hussein in power, and many thousands of people died under his regime, but the US didn't invade until many years later, so it wasn't really an invasion plus George W Bush deserves credit for showing so much restraint.
Not sure what war you're referring to, but if it's the one in Ukraine, that didn't come out of a conclave of elites looking for an answer for the "stress of collapse." It came out of the mind of ONE particular elite named Vladimir Putin.
It's not clear to me how the civil war in the Donbas which began in 2014 came from the mind of Putin.
You do know this is the oldest trick in the imperialist playbook, right? Foment a civil war, then point to the civil war YOU started as justification for sending in military "advisors" or just all-out invading, It's exactly what the US did in Vietnam, and then it was the worst thing ever, but when the Russians do it it's AWESOME.
If any outsiders started the civil war in Ukraine, it was the US. And just as in Vietnam, it was indeed wrong. Putin instantly accepted the triumph of the wolfangel and sonnenraad in Kyiv. By the way, it is not at all clear you object to the US war on Vietnam. But defeat is an orphan...
A separatist insurgency that wants to break off from Ukraine to join Russia, using Russian-supplied weapons. WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK RUSSIA WAS INVOLVED?
Russia was involved in one sense, Putin immediately recognized the coup regime, which served to limit efforts to restore the elected government. It is not clear that the so-called separatists were actually separatists committing to fusion with the Russian Federation. Certainly the bombardment for years of ethnic Russians/Russian language speakers increased any such tendencies. Yet Putin refused to recognize any unity. Indeed, Minsk II openly committed the Donbas governments to Ukraine, albeit with autonomy and guarantees of rights you would deny them. But Minsk II was a fraud designed to buy time for further war.
It was the Kyiv regime which decided ethnic Russians/Russian speakers were not equal. An issue you have ignored, the right to national self determination, favors the Russians. Old boundaries cannot be sacred, especially given that imperialism freely ignores them when it wants to (Vietnam, Korea, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Sudan, the PRC, for glaring examples.)
You are not a consistent anti-imperialist, you are consistently pro-imperialist. Enough of this, no one else is paying attention anyhow.
It's like Donald Trump's fanboys explaining how he was never found guilty of rape, just sexual assault. It wears on you, having to explain the difference all the time.
I understand, it must be tiring always having to explain why the country that sent its tanks rolling over the border of another country wasn't actually doing an invasion.
How and why did the U.S., in 2014, start a civil war in Ukraine? Wikipedia says,тАЭThe war began in April 2014, when a commando unit headed by Russian citizen Igor Girkin seized Sloviansk in Donetsk oblast. The Ukrainian military launched an operation against them. The war continued until subsumed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. тАЬ
Ask Victoria Nuland how and why she was picking the new leaders of the coup government? For that matter, explain why the US-dominated IMF gave preferential treatment to Ukraine to effectively finance the war? And it would be honest of you to explain why the first act of the coup government was to attack the Russian language speakers with discriminatory language?
US figures openly boasted of their money being well spent on NGOs years before in supporting the coup for years before. The implicit claim that the Party of Regions was a Russian trojan horse is tendentious. Your implicit assumption that US policy is obviously driven by moral principle is merely conformity. I am not privy to the secret counsels of the imperialists though, so I am unashamed cannot reliably detail their true motives and operational goals.
Recognizing the right of nations to self-determination means accepting that Ukrainians may wish to have "their" own entirely separate country but by the very same principle that does not mean they have the right to majority ethnic Russian/Russian language speaking areas. Supporting he imperialist decision that this particular boundary is sacred, unlike others pro-imperialists like you support revising, forcibly if necessary, isn't moral, it's merely obedience.
Again the right of nations to self-determination means the right to national unity. It was Kyiv that decided Russians were not part of the new Ukraine. That raised the issue of which nation the majority ethnic Russian/Russian language speakers actually belonged to. The insistence they should be inferior citizens in Ukraine is effectively the insistence the Ukrainians have the right of conquest. The right of nations to self determination favors the Russians. Only a selective endorsement of existing boundaries stands in opposition...but that principle is opposed to the right of nations to self determination.
As it is, your claim is like saying the US Civil War started with the terrorist John Brown seizing Harper's Ferry. It didn't because the US military in the person of Robert E. Lee and his troops quickly defeated the liberators. If you were consistent you would dismiss Brown as a terrorist too. In Ukraine, the military split. The bulk of the Donetsk and Lugansk militias were from Ukraine., just as Brown wasn't just some random white guy imposing his Yankee will on hapless victims. Kharkov nearly went over as well, by the way. Odessa was kept "loyal" by an atrocity, the fascists setting fire to the trades union building, however much you may have enjoyed that. There was no mass invasion of the Donbas by Russian troops.
(The Russian forces who were massively engaged in saving Crimea from the coup were already in Crimea. Mounting an invasion of new territory does not happen quickly. Remember how long it took to prepare the Iraq invasion. There was no war in Crimea precisely because the Ukrainian forces there acceded. It is not even certain that was due to force majeure. There really was separatist feeling in Crimea, something which dated back to the very formation of independent Ukraine, as you should acknowledge.)
Girkin/Strelkov was not an agent of Putin, as evidenced by his later imprisonment by "Putin." He did not succeed by himself, but with the help of Ukrainians. Again, the fact that Putin scotched any later pleas for unification matters. For that matter, the protection of the property of Ukrainian oligarchs like Akhmetov shows a substantive commitment towards economic unity with Kyiv.
Last and least, relying on wikipedia on any controversial matter is risky, to say the least. Using it to apologize for fascism is in my opinion deplorable.
Yes, unlike you, I'm a consistent anti-imperialist. I'm against it whether it's being done by Americans or Russians.
If there's a civil war in a neighboring country, that's a permission slip to invade? Good to know. Sorry Canada or Mexico didn't exercise the option when they had the chance.
Canada wasn't independent at that time. There most certainly were powerful forces in England advocating open intervention (the high point was the notorious Trent affair.) Given the eventual disparity in naval forces, the English recognition of Confederate belligerency ended up helping the Union.....but that was in no sense friendly.
Mexico was invaded by the French, English and Spanish at the period and in no position to intervene. But during the Mexican revolution, the US did intervene in many ways, including Pershing's military incursions.
Plainly I do not belong to this commentariat and have canceled my subscription so will not be tempted to reply to SOMETHING IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET when September comes.
Why not leave right now? Take your pixels and go home.
There are multiple interconnected wars, preparations for expanding said wars, and blockades, as well as increasing use of things like cyberwarfare, lawfare, assassination, interference in internal affairs of other nations. In my judgment the world has already begun hybrid WWIII. It looks like neither WWI nor WWII, but then, why should it?
Also, the word answer was in scare quotes because of the fundamental irrationality of using war to pursue narrow short term interests regardless. In the end the answer isn't even an answer because in the end war won't work and will actively militate against other courses that might. The nonsense about a conclave is yours, seemingly an attempt to imply a conspiracy theory?
But a conspiracy of one is as irrational as most conspiracy theories. And it is still an elite "answer" in effect agreeing with me, unless you mean to imply that the personal wickedness of Putin is a world-historical force. The war began in 2014 with a coup against the legal government and proceeded with a civil war marked largely by Kyiv government shelling of civilian targets in the Donbas. The supposed author immediately acceded to the coup (which incidentally proves Putin really does have no more problem with Ukrainian fascists that you do) and did not intervene for eight years. The price for that is generally estimated at about 14 000 dead, also not a problem for you.
There was a coup in Iraq that installed Saddam Hussein in power, and many thousands of people died under his regime, but the US didn't invade until many years later, so it wasn't really an invasion plus George W Bush deserves credit for showing so much restraint.
Given the long support for Hussein during that period, this is a red herring. But that's a misnomer, given how brown, rightist this nonsense is.
Putin's not to blame for a war he started because he started it later rather than sooner?
The war was already ongoing, therefore Putin didn't *start* one in 2022 either.