If it turns out to be false I think the main idea is to
1) discredit the Russian army(they even need the Iranians to work properly because they lack UAV-tech), this also boosts ukrainian/allies morale, "this is winnable, they are lacking x or y" etc
2) it makes it easier to justify further support of weapons to Ukraine (our enemies are piling together and we need unity us/eu to do the same)


I don't really agree with this part, the invasion from a geopolitical stand point was expected, the russians cant allow ukraine to join/align with nato for several reasons, many of which are direct existential threats. Also all things considered this war has been ongoing since 2014, the invasion is just an event that was set in action after the coup against yanukovych. It wasn't a democratic coup of any sorts, the south/east of dnipro were strong supporters of yanukoyych.. this isn't disputable you can look at the election data.

If you talking about humanism, then all wars are evil and wrong. Essentially all american,chinese,russian etc invasions are evil by nature.. but

I don't believe in the concept of morality when it comes to geopolitics, because it really doesn't belong. But for me sometimes things can be a bit too grotesque where i would call it sadism rather than politics, an example from both sides would be, when civilians were burned alive in odessa 2014 by essentially nazis, or for example the events in bucha. When actions serve no distinct greater purpose and is just done systematically to scare, hurt and damage innocent lives then it is sadism really. Both sides have been culprits to sort of sadistic systematic behavior this since 2014 by the way, whether it be shooting random artillery into donbass, or buchering people in bucha.. its same shit

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jul 27 2022 04:03am

Your new-ish to the topic but to be clear the bolded is my position. I had provided an example of an apologist statement, i clearly outlined the statement was not my view. if you have not seen it before, this is my position:

i.e. my position in the round is that Russia is isolationist, not expansionist (note that I am the OP and stated my position from the get-go). they are attempting to maintain the status quo (which is not good for ukraine) while the west (the US) is attempting to change a black chess piece to a white chess piece, because they want every country on the planet to be a democracy (all other forms of government are deemed an affront to US interests. actually, democratic governments that dont agree with the US are also an afford to US interests). Note that when using the term US, i refer to successive US governments, not the people. This is not to say that the US not great but rather their specific foreign policy in this matter is deeply flawed.



This post was edited by ferdia on Jul 27 2022 04:37am

I've seen it, but I am a bit more hesitant.. I don't really agree with the main objective, or successful policy being to align Europe and Russia against china. Europe with Russia is a beast in itself, which could be even more problematic than China.

Essentially i hold the view that the main objective of America will always be akin to what UK was doing as a power-balance keeper during the conflict period in Europe after the long peace. If Europe or/and Asia is united it poses a threat to not just American hegemony but it has the ability to freeze America almost entirely.

The biggest problem for the Americans is Eurasia that would be catastrophic, but even Europe entirely united is a problem, and the only way to make it less likely to principally enact itself is by fracturing it. I think for Americans the main goal is to peel Russia/Europe a part rather than to have someone as a counterweight to china. A europe that isn't divided is by itself more scary if not equally scary as china, this would potentially lead to tripolarity, which is even more tricky.

[source https://michael-hudson.com/2022/02/americas-real-adversaries-are-its-european-and-other-allies/ , this guy has interesting opinions from time to time, mine are similar]

I find this to be quite interesting, as much as people would like you to believe, the people in power at the top of the chain are rarely stupid people.. Russia is commodities powerhouse and rest of Europe is the engine, these 2 need to be kept separate.

I personally believe in the Eurasian project, i think it will be what drives humanity in the coming decades.. but I am not biased in discussion, I give honest views. I don't dislike what you said, but I think it is a bit too simplistic, because no form of government are inherently affront to US interests. The Americans as far as I can tell have never really cared about how a state is managed, woodrow wilson spoke a lot about the need for similarity in system of governance and shared instutitons for world peace, or mirroring the american way of living worldwide as a standard, but my view was always that it was an opening excuse to extend US hegemony towards europe and onwards ( remember americans were prevalently against acts outside of the americas that point in time). I dont think they bought what they were selling..

This post was edited by ownyaah on Jul 27 2022 04:49am

whats your definition of "the eurasian project" I dont understand this.

also i have no comment at this time re: the other stuff you said noting its a long conversation.

nobody lies more than governments and its organisations, doesnt matter where or which side

yes, and therein lies the issue. when you call yourself an authority with credibility but make an initial fuck up that bad you're never going to recover. i feel my plane analogy works well for this topic.

plane analogy ? do tell !

please forgive me for skimming over some of this topic in recent days, i hope you will appreciate that there was alot of junk thrown in and sometimes i overlook these gems.

i know ur pain, i made the joe biden thread and would get like 30 notifications a day.