> War was avoidable.
The war started in 2014 and Ukraine has been preparing for full scale invasion ever since with or without western help.
> Just because you lack the imagination or historical understanding to see how else this could have played out doesn't exclude these counterfactuals from possibility.
Enlighten me, how I lack imagination or historical understanding about my own country that is being invaded right now.
You simplify it too much. There was a million people on maidan in Kyiv. Nation voted for EU - they were done with Russian kleptocrats meddling with Ukrainian politics and influencing country all the time.
Looks to me you’re thinking about all of this like it’s some tabletop or RTS game.
You should travel to parts of the Eastern Europe that used to be under Soviet occupation someday. Share your views on Russia with the locals over beer and you'll find out rather quckly why "blithely trusting the state department" is a hell of a lot better than dealing with the Russians. Not to say that people are wholly uncritical of the US. But having experienced Russia up close it's clear as day what's worse.
Also as a reminder Russia could end the war today by withdrawing its armed forces from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine.
> So does western media.
What does our discussion have to do with western media?
> That doesn't mean this was smart
No offence, but who are you, someone sitting in thousands kilometers away and not knowing an iota about challenges that Ukraine faced since God knows when, to say what is stupid? Democratic revolution to oust Russian politics out of your country is stupid to you?
Were American Revolution war and American Civil war stupid? People died, after all. Could’ve stayed colony or kept slaves.
> It didn't.
Yes it did, lol. And full scale invasion only solidified the victory. Russian language is increasingly vilified, Russian/Soviet symbols are being removed, corruption is being fought, national identity is being restored. It’s going to be nigh impossible to do again what Russians could afford to do in the open for 30 years.
Yeah, there were 100 million…
They could have waited a year and then won the next election if they thought they had such a clear case. But they didn’t because they weren’t so sure. They chose revolution to overthrow a government elected through regular elections.
Russian puppet started shooting students, after that it was start of the end for Yanukovich. At least get your facts straight, tovarisch.
I don't doubt that a big chunk of Ukraine wanted to join up with the West. After all, we are more prosperous. The question is to what extent that is possible when one considers geopolitical constraints. I think what some people are saying is, Ukrainians would probably not have been for the current situation if they had known in advance. I don't think they would have been for war with Russia, to break away from them. I don't think that's what maidan was about. I think what some people are also saying is that the US knew this would lead to war and pushed Ukraine into it, anyway. And that is also the reason why France and Germany were more reluctant on the matter, because this is not good for us here in Europe.
I personally don't know what to think. I think the US framing of the situation is childish: "the Ukrainians wanted to leave and Russia doesn't want them to". As if they wouldn't do exactly the same thing, where they in that situation. Seems to me that you cannot ignore the geopolitics. At the same time, a people have sovereignty over their land and a right to do with it what they please, but that is only an ideal and not true in practice. Well, there is nobody enforcing such ideals so you need to go to war...
Even way back before Ukraine, people question why Russia has been kept as an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Because they don't submit to the US hegemony? But they could be allies. India doesn't submit either, for that matter, but they are semi-allies. But not Russia. Because? We wouldn't be in the current situation if Russia wasn't antagonized so hard way back then.
I think it is very hard to parse objectively what is happening because there is so much propaganda and heated opinions on the topic. And not everyone has the same objectives, and people can always contort themselves to blame everything on those they despise.
> I personally don't know what to think. I think the US framing of the situation is childish: "the Ukrainians wanted to leave and Russia doesn't want them to".
They’re framing nothing. This is literally what happened.
> As if they wouldn't do exactly the same thing, where they in that situation.
That’s irrelevant to the current situation.
> Even way back before Ukraine, people question why Russia has been kept as an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Because they don't submit to the US hegemony? But they could be allies. India doesn't submit either, for that matter, but they are semi-allies. But not Russia. Because? We wouldn't be in the current situation if Russia wasn't antagonized so hard way back then.
Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria. Constant meddling in business of other post-Soviet republics. Wow, poor Russia being antagonized by evil West!
> I think it is very hard to parse objectively what is happening because there is so much propaganda and heated opinions on the topic.
Ah, old “hard to know REAL truth”. Straight out of Russia’s metodichka.
> Even way back before Ukraine, people question why Russia has been kept as an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Because they don't submit to the US hegemony? But they could be allies. India doesn't submit either, for that matter, but they are semi-allies. But not Russia. Because? We wouldn't be in the current situation if Russia wasn't antagonized so hard way back then.
Eastern Europe is celebrating 30-year-anniversary of departure of Russian troops. In some countries, it happened in 1993, in others, in 1994. They left behind lots of graffiti with messages such as "the masters will be back". Not only regular soldiers, but diplomats and high officials have maintained the same attitude throughout decades since then. Countries in Eastern Europe are still referred to as "near abroad", distinct from "real" foreign countries, as if they were rebelling colonies. Instead of seeking reconciliation like Germany after the WWII, Russia has done nothing but denied its crimes in Eastern Europe and mocked victims. By trying to sabotage integration with international organizations, Russia has done everything they could to ruin the future too and keep those countries internationally isolated. Instead of respecting sovereignty, they have relentlessly meddled with internal affairs, supported extremists, fueled social division and instigated violent protests. In Ukraine, they went a step further and started the largest war in Europe since Hitler's invasion of Poland. Hundreds of thousands are dead and material damages are in hundreds of billions only because Ukraine wanted closer trade relations with the European Union.
Who's the antagonizer here?
>Human lives are always worth more than ephemeral states.
Death is actually better outcome than living under Russian rule.
> War was avoidable. Ukraine only entered into armed conflict because they were promised support that never showed up.
That is such a blatant lie. As a person who was in the middle of it I am so tired of people trying to change the timeline to fit their favourite conspiracy.
First period of full scale invasion was driven from the bottom. The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway.
President was not able to accept surrender because the most active people where enlisting and fighting and had their first big win - stopping the "3-day operation" and pushing russians away from Kyiv.
After than happened, it became obvious how in only few weeks of occupation, russians did numerous war crimes - executing elected leaders in small cities, indiscriminate tortures, raping and so on. Read about what happened in Bucha and Irpin, but that was just the most famous places. I have friends who lived under occupation and it the same things happened in other places. It was systematic.
Pushing russia from Kyiv left people in Ukraine in shock what the "brotherly" nation is willing to do just for fun. And it became very clear for everyone what the surrender would mean.
But even besides all that, the war in Ukraine shapes and destabilises European politics right now. Allowing russia to win will have a devastating effect in the whole EU.
The president and government was in shock and disorganised trying to work on some sort of a surrender plan while people were standing in lines for ammunition giveaway.
This part I wasn't aware of - can you go into more detail, please?
The impression from the beginning (and if it was a façade, it seems it was a very elaborate one) was that Zelenskyy and his crew were never for a moment considering surrendering. As in this famous video they made in the early hours of Feb 25th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0En27IsHaL0
But since you were a lot closer events, perhaps you can provide some context we may be missing.
It is somewhat documented in the Wikipedia page [1].
"During a series of meetings, by the end of March Russia and Ukraine negotiators produced the Istanbul Communiqué, "Key Provisions of the Treaty on Ukraine's Security Guarantees" - a framework of a possible agreement. The agreement would have declared Ukraine to be a neutral state, put a limit on its military, and list Russia and Western countries, including the US and the UK, as guarantors, obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it. The talks almost reached agreement, with both sides "consider[ing] far-reaching concessions", but stopped in May 2022 due to a combination of several factors."
And this quote:
"Deputy Kremlin Chief of Staff Dmitry Kozak said in 2022 that he had negotiated an agreement with Ukraine within a few days of the invasion. This settlement would have ended hostilities in exchange for guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO. The agreement was however blocked by Putin, who "expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory". A Kremlin spokesman denied the story."
According to the drafts - these "security guarantees" were effectively a surrender, as Ukraine had to limit its army to some very small number making any type of resistance impossible. Adding western countries as guarantors is just sugar coating as with stripped down military, assistance will be impossible and there is no such reality in which UK and US will send their troops against Russia.
Even as bad as this treaty was for Ukraine, Russians never actually considered this negotiations seriously. Top Ukrainian officials were working on this treaty with third-tier diplomats from the Russia side. At that time, Russia was absolutely sure to overpower Ukraine by force and to use this negotiations as the smoke screen or for propaganda purposes in the future.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russ...
Okay, so you're referring to events later in March then (I thought you were referring to the situation just as the invasion was starting).
According to the drafts - these "security guarantees" were effectively a surrender, as Ukraine had to limit its army to some very small number making any type of resistance impossible.
Strong agreement there. But isn't it also true that it was precisely the obviously flimsy and deceptive "security guarantees" (which apparently were buried in an annex of a much larger document) were (along with the territorial demands, and the atrocities happening on the ground) precisely what convinced the Ukrainian side to back out, once they found out about them?
The point here is that I'm not sure it's fair to say they were giving serious consideration to a "surrender plan" as such. The impression I have is that they were hoping to find a way to negotiate a Russian retreat in exchange for more or less symbolic concessions (e.g. "Ukraine not join NATO"), but no territorial concessions or drastic reductions in armed forces (which seems not unreasonable if your country is being overrun, and you want to avoid the prospect the prospect of being at war indefinitely like it is now). But that once they found out about (and/or Putin's team shifted their terms to include) the "surrender bits", and the news of the atrocities in Bucha/Irpin started coming in, that's when the process broke down.
" Ukraine only entered into armed conflict"
This is such a disgusting formulation that I struggle to be civil when responding to it. Ukraine was invaded, both in 2014 and 2022. Saying that a victim of an invasion "entered into armed conflict" is like saying that a victim of a rape "had sex".
An invaded country can either capitulate outright (like Czechoslovakia in 1968), or fight back. Most countries, if their strategic position isn't catastrophic from the onset, tend to fight back: that is the whole point of having a military. And east of the former Iron Curtain, most nations would fight back just based on their terrible experience with former Russian control. From Finland to at least Georgia, "Never again" is the common sentiment.
(There are exceptions to this rule, like Slovakia and Hungary.)
"because they were promised support that never showed up"
Are you rewriting a very recent history? In the first weeks, the West was mostly treading lightly about the situation, because they were afraid of the Big Bad Bear. The German Foreign Minister told the Ukrainian ambassador Melnik in no uncertain terms that they were goners, and Germany sent them some old helmets, ffs. France's Macron had his head full of diplomatic-solution dreams that just never materialized, and sat on the phone to Moscow for weeks. Again, there were important exceptions like the UK or Poland, which started sending efficient help immediately, but the West as a whole only started taking support of Ukraine seriously when the Ukrainian army stopped the initial onslaught and pressured the Russian army north of Kyiv to withdraw. Only then it became clear that the Russians overextended themselves and that the country is not about to fall, at least not immediately.
"That's the whole point of sovereignity."
According to Putin, who really likes to speak about sovereignty, the whole point of sovereignty is to do whatever you want.