Ukraine updates

[Valcazar]

My position then was anti-American foreign policy. My position today is anti-American foreign policy. The only consistent position is mine and for the right reasons. Reasons have been expanded on many times.

But you spent a LOT of time obfuscating that position and claiming to be a non-interventionist and anti war.
Even now you are trying to hand wave this by boldfacing "right reasons".

One of the reasons people have constantly pointed out the logical inconsistencies in your position is because you kept clinging to these other justifications.
That people can poke holes in them so easily seems to make you extremely mad by the way, which is why I am glad to see you settling down to admitting the true motivations here.

I do give some credence to your "we shouldn't be involved with anything and only spend money at home" idea, mind you, since it dovetails as a rainbow and pony fairytale of what would happen.

I just think you will be much less frustrated and angry if you don't have to front fake arguments and justifications for your position anymore.

 

[Valcazar]

The US will never be involved in India, as the Indians, have a very intelligent foreign policy where they stay friendly with everybody but dont let anyone interfere. Which is exactly the kind of foreign policy Ukraine should have adopted. But alas.

"The US will never be involved with India"?

India, US carry out wargames to support fighter aircraft ops

The troops of both countries are likely to join up with the larger contingent of both sides including their fighter and transport aircraft at Kalaikunda codenamed Ex CopeIndia

www.firstpost.com

Biden reiterates US support for India’s permanent seat in UNSC, entry into NSG

Biden’s support provides a big boost to New Delhi’s push for the reform

www.theweek.in

This Time the US Is Taking India’s Side Against China

Unlike in 2017, U.S. support for India at a time of confrontation with China is much more pronounced this time around.

thediplomat.com

Across South Asia, U.S. and India Push Back Against China

Beijing’s strategic initiatives on the subcontinent are sputtering.

foreignpolicy.com

Spurred by China Rivalry, U.S., India Deepen Strategic Ties

The United States and India inked on October 27 a key agreement that will help New Delhi get real-time access to American geospatial intelligence. The agreement, known as the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), was a result of the 2+2 ministerial dialogue between U.S. and Indian...

www.usip.org

 

[krealtarron]

But you spent a LOT of time obfuscating that position and claiming to be a non-interventionist and anti war.

American foreign policy is belligerent.. Therefore being anti-war and non-interventionist is very much in line with being anti-American foreign policy. There are no contradictions here.

 

[Valcazar]

Putin cannot give back Donbas and stay in power. Simple as that. If Russia loses Donbas Putin loses his throne and likely his life or at least freedom. So there goes that brilliant idea.

But that would get into the discussion that Putin is more interested in regime security than national security, and we aren't allowed to talk about that, now are we?
After all, the idea that a country would go to war (or that its decision to go to war, stay at war, or how it chooses to prosecute a war) might be influenced by something as tawdry as domestic politics is one that no reasonable person would accept! Who could possibly think these things might influence matters when there is the glowing shiny ball of pure, unreconstructed evil that is NATO floating about?

 

[krealtarron]

"The US will never be involved with India"?

India, US carry out wargames to support fighter aircraft ops

The troops of both countries are likely to join up with the larger contingent of both sides including their fighter and transport aircraft at Kalaikunda codenamed Ex CopeIndia

www.firstpost.com

Biden reiterates US support for India’s permanent seat in UNSC, entry into NSG

Biden’s support provides a big boost to New Delhi’s push for the reform

www.theweek.in

This Time the US Is Taking India’s Side Against China

Unlike in 2017, U.S. support for India at a time of confrontation with China is much more pronounced this time around.

thediplomat.com

Across South Asia, U.S. and India Push Back Against China

Beijing’s strategic initiatives on the subcontinent are sputtering.

foreignpolicy.com

Spurred by China Rivalry, U.S., India Deepen Strategic Ties

The United States and India inked on October 27 a key agreement that will help New Delhi get real-time access to American geospatial intelligence. The agreement, known as the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), was a result of the 2+2 ministerial dialogue between U.S. and Indian...

www.usip.org

Please explain how military exercises, mutual corporation and diplomacy etc is exactly the same as interfering with elections in Ukraine, orchestrating a coup and regime change and using Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia. I mean if the US was so "involved" with India as you are insinuating, it should have been able to get India to vote against Russia at the UN at the very least, right? Why didn't that happen?

You started again with your dishonest misinterpretations of my posts, right? You just can't help it.

 

[Valcazar]

You are making a circular never ending argument with "What if Russia does not...".

That is why it is a negotiation not a give Russia what it wants initiative. How a negotiation turns out is still up in the air, but it needs to be the primary focus. No one said it was going to be easy.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that it will be easy.

But again, if you know what the end game is, then it isn't a negotiation.
You need to address the fact that both sides - Ukraine and Russia - don't want the solution you are proposing.
So how do you get to this end state?

The other alternative is protracted war, millions of people dead, the country decimated for decades.

Welcome to what happens when a country decides to annex another country because it thinks it can take over easily and then decides to stay because backing off would look "weak".
This is why people tried to prevent the war in the first place, because once it starts it is very hard to get the fighting to stop.

And what is your end game anyway? What do you foresee will happen if the war continues? It just brings you closer and closer to WW 3 nuclear holocaust.

My endgame? There is none. There are no endgames because the world keeps going.
In a better world, there would be a Russian withdrawal to pre-2014 borders but I very much doubt that will happen.
What I see as most likely is a frozen conflict with a negotiated cease fire - I doubt an actual peace settlement happens anytime soon.
Where that line is when the negotiation happens is difficult to see.

Included in that ceasefire - hopefully - are some redress for the war crimes involved, especially the child kidnapping and ethnic cleansing.
I don't have high hopes.

It is also in Russia's best interests to end the war given the amount of losses they have suffered.

It was in Russia's best interests not to invade at all but they misjudged the situation.
They also have a desire to put more troops on the Finnish border but won't be able to until the end of the decade, I suspect.
That internal pressure to deal with other matters may bring them to the bargaining table eventually, but as you keep pointing out, they are quite willing to absorb those kinds of losses for their strategic goals and as long as Putin feels his strategic needs are best met by having a war in Ukraine he is willing to push the war further and further into a state of conflict.

Absolute worst case (not that I agree with this, but WORST CASE), give Donbas and Crimea to Russia. End the war. And make Ukraine "western oriented" but not part of NATO (like Mexico). The war ending needs to be the focus. SO.FUCKING.WHAT if Ukraine loses areas that are already pro-Russian anyway? The average Ukrainian can move on and rebuild instead of having their lives uppended for decades. It is not the first time war has resulted in territorial changes.

The war very will likely result in territorial changes, although giving Putin more of the land than he actually managed to occupy only seems like it is rewarding him for his decision to attack.
That's one of the parts you seem unwilling to accept.
Invade -> get to keep what you invaded and maybe more is a signal to everyone that invading is the right policy choice.
Sure, it will be costly, but it will probably be worth it.

A major factor influencing lots of people's decision making here is letting that be the lesson people take from the situation, since it almost guarantees world-wide military build up and increases the chances of invasion in multiple places.

 

[Leimonis]

But that would get into the discussion that Putin is more interested in regime security than national security, and we aren't allowed to talk about that, now are we?
After all, the idea that a country would go to war (or that its decision to go to war, stay at war, or how it chooses to prosecute a war) might be influenced by something as tawdry as domestic politics is one that no reasonable person would accept! Who could possibly think these things might influence matters when there is the glowing shiny ball of pure, unreconstructed evil that is NATO floating about?

Putin definitely watched wag the dog

Wag the Dog - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Putin’s current position on war seems to be very 1984. The war is permanent and doesn’t stop. And no one should think of changing leaders during wartime.

 

[Valcazar]

I dont disagree with this. But we need to be pushing for it rather than sitting on our asses and funding a war is what I am trying to say.

Why do you think there have been no negotiations and that negotiations aren't ongoing?
They are.
They just aren't in a big summit with big meetings.
It isn't like they are so silly as to wait for an agreed on ceasefire to negotiate.

 

[Valcazar]

Sure, but if Ukraine joins NATO now Article 5 would kick in and it is WW 3.

That was part of Putin's reason for invading in 2014.
If there is border instability or disputed territory, NATO won't accept you.

Ukraine could not be accepted into NATO as long as Russia still had troops in Crimea and the Donbas region.
Putin had accomplished his "keep Ukraine out of NATO" goal with the 2014 invasion.

Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO until some kind of negotiated settlement with Russia is reached because NATO doesn't want to escalate this to WW3.

But much like in Georgia, the invasion has strengthened the country's desire to join NATO and given the justification necessary to convince most of its people that it is the thing to do.

 

[Valcazar]

American foreign policy is belligerent.. Therefore being anti-war and non-interventionist is very much in line with being anti-American foreign policy. There are no contradictions here.

Your problem is the anti-war part, since you've been actively supporting a war.
You don't like that contradiction, but it is there.

If you just stuck to your "NATO needs to be dismantled and there needs to be a multipolar world without one global hegemon" guns, you would be much less ridiculous sounding much of the time.
People would still disagree with you - either with the core premise or with what you think is acceptable to bring about that state of affairs - but you wouldn't have to tie yourself in knots in quite the same way.

 

[Valcazar]

Please explain how military exercises, mutual corporation and diplomacy etc is exactly the same as interfering with elections in Ukraine, orchestrating a coup and regime change and using Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia. I mean if the US was so "involved" with India as you are insinuating, it should have been able to get India to vote against Russia at the UN at the very least, right? Why didn't that happen?

You started again with your dishonest misinterpretations of my posts, right? You just can't help it.

This isn't a dishonest misrepresentation of your post.
You said they aren't involved with India, but they are.
In fact, a lot of people are worried that the US thinking India is useful against China is blinding them to some serious faults in India.

If your contention is that my earlier comment about how you would react to China/India depends on how much the US or NATO helps is wrong, then fine.
I just don't believe you.

If China invades India and the US provides military hardware to support India in that conflict, you will side with China.

I am sure you say that isn't true, but I don't believe you and I have no reason to believe you based on everything you have said in this thread and others.

 

[krealtarron]

Your problem is the anti-war part, since you've been actively supporting a war.
You don't like that contradiction, but it is there.

I have never supported war. There have been no contradictions in my position, but your reasoning most certain is.

According to you I am not anti-war because I wont be pro-war and support NATOs efforts. So essentially if you dont agree with NATOs military assistance of Ukraine, you are automatically pro-war because in your mind, I support Russia's invasion. So the only way you can be anti-war according to you (and others), is to support NATOs military assistance to keep the war going! This is an incredibly reductive, convoluted and stupid reasoning that many have resorted to on this board.

 

[krealtarron]

This isn't a dishonest misrepresentation of your post.
You said they aren't involved with India, but they are.
In fact, a lot of people are worried that the US thinking India is useful against China is blinding them to some serious faults in India.

If your contention is that my earlier comment about how you would react to China/India depends on how much the US or NATO helps is wrong, then fine.
I just don't believe you.

If China invades India and the US provides military hardware to support India in that conflict, you will side with China.

I am sure you say that isn't true, but I don't believe you and I have no reason to believe you based on everything you have said in this thread and others.

It most certainly is a dishonest misinterpretation.

When I say "they are not involved with India", is your reading honestly to equate their engagement with India to their involvement with Ukraine? Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not attempting to misinterpret, how misinformed do you have to be in order to even draw that comparison in the first place? Like according to you for the statement "they are not involved with India" to be true, they should not have any military or civilian trade/cooperation with them? That is laughable.

Sure, the US thinks India is a counter to China in the region and sure India is adversarial to China because of their own border issues. Maybe their goals in this case align. But in what exact manner is the US "involved" with India the same way it is involved with Ukraine? The answer is that they are not.

India is a non-aligned country. They have good relations with the US. They have good relations with Russia. They have border issues with China and YET, they do big business with China. India will NEVER let the US build a military base in their land, will never assist the US against Russia, will never assist the US with any of their wars or join any of their military alliances, will never let them meddle in their internal affairs etc., India turned down assistance to the US during the Iraq war. Infact they turned down western assistance to help with the Kashmir issue. They refused to comply with sanctions against Iran. And now they buy oil from Russia.

They will however do big business with the US, buy weapons from them, train their troops in India and send their troops to train in the US or participate in military exercises.

In short they are very independent and assert their sovereignty and stand on their own for their own interests.

Ukraine on the other hand is a puppet state and they are not remotely comparable to India. So dont compare US involvement with Ukraine to India as it is false equivalency.

India and China also will never get to invasions. They are both nuclear states and even though they may have border skirmishes, they haven't resorted to war since 1967. So this is an implausible scenario that you are bringing up. But even if they do get to war because China invades lets say Arunachal Pradesh, then I would support India because that will be 2 independent countries fighting.

PS: By the same measure had there been no NATO involvement and Ukraine was attacked by Russia for no reason and invaded, I would have sided with Ukraine. But that is not the case here. There are external forces at play that are primarily responsible for egging on war.

 

[Valcazar]

I have never supported war. There have been no contradictions in my position, but your reasoning most certain is.

According to you I am not anti-war because I wont be pro-war and support NATOs efforts.

So essentially if you dont agree with NATOs military assistance of Ukraine, you are automatically pro-war because in your mind, I support Russia's invasion. So the only way you can be anti-war according to you (and others), is to support NATOs military assistance to keep the war going! This is an incredibly reductive, convoluted and stupid reasoning that many have resorted to on this board.

Not at all.
I am saying you are pro-war because you have consistently said that Russia was right to invade Ukraine. (Making you pro-this-war.)
I know you keep pretending you aren't saying that, but you have said they had no choice given their situation.

Since no one agrees with your analysis, there are two options.
1) Your analysis is wildly flawed and you are also kind of a moron. -- I've seen your posts in various forum here and this does not seem likely.
2) Your analysis is a front for your preferred position, which is that anything done to resist the evils of NATO imperialism and hegemony is correct and proper. If that means invasions of non-aligned countries and the commission of war crimes, then so be it.

You do not have a consistent "anti-war" position in any way.
You may be generally "I would prefer no war to war", but then so is everyone except the worst kinds of people.
What you are is someone who has different criteria for what is considered an appropriate time to wage war and what kinds of war are appropriate.

It is your weird need to pretend that you have some kind of fierce and consistent anti-war position based on something else that ties you in knots.

You believe - like many others - that war is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it is always a tragedy.
You believe - like fewer others - that invasion and occupation of a sovereign country is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it isn't your first choice.
You believe - like even fewer others - that the invading country should be granted most of its pre-invasion demands if that brings about a quick resolution to the war, and it is the world's responsibility to bring about this state of affairs, despite the fact that this position encourages more aggression, military build up, belligerence, and war from other countries in the future. (Which is the one place where people can argue that you are generally pro-war and not just pro-war in this case.)

All of that is fine, even if people will disagree with you.
But since you seem to find it important to pretend that you have a completely anti-war position and your preferences are based on that, you end up arguing in ways that make you look ridiculous as you consistently say that the position that supports Russia's war as the only choice that they had to make is an anti-war position and adopt positions and policies that are inconsistent when applied to any other situation since they are post-hoc justifications.

Again, if you simply owned your "NATO must be broken up and a multi-polar global order created" you wouldn't have to spin yourself into a frenzy.

 

[Leimonis]

Not at all.
I am saying you are pro-war because you have consistently said that Russia was right to invade Ukraine. (Making you pro-this-war.)
I know you keep pretending you aren't saying that, but you have said they had no choice given their situation.

Since no one agrees with your analysis, there are two options.
1) Your analysis is wildly flawed and you are also kind of a moron. -- I've seen your posts in various forum here and this does not seem likely.
2) Your analysis is a front for your preferred position, which is that anything done to resist the evils of NATO imperialism and hegemony is correct and proper. If that means invasions of non-aligned countries and the commission of war crimes, then so be it.

You do not have a consistent "anti-war" position in any way.
You may be generally "I would prefer no war to war", but then so is everyone except the worst kinds of people.
What you are is someone who has different criteria for what is considered an appropriate time to wage war and what kinds of war are appropriate.

It is your weird need to pretend that you have some kind of fierce and consistent anti-war position based on something else that ties you in knots.

You believe - like many others - that war is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it is always a tragedy.
You believe - like fewer others - that invasion and occupation of a sovereign country is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it isn't your first choice.
You believe - like even fewer others - that the invading country should be granted most of its pre-invasion demands if that brings about a quick resolution to the war, and it is the world's responsibility to bring about this state of affairs, despite the fact that this position encourages more aggression, military build up, belligerence, and war from other countries in the future. (Which is the one place where people can argue that you are generally pro-war and not just pro-war in this case.)

All of that is fine, even if people will disagree with you.
But since you seem to find it important to pretend that you have a completely anti-war position and your preferences are based on that, you end up arguing in ways that make you look ridiculous as you consistently say that the position that supports Russia's war as the only choice that they had to make is an anti-war position and adopt positions and policies that are inconsistent when applied to any other situation since they are post-hoc justifications.

Again, if you simply owned your "NATO must be broken up and a multi-polar global order created" you wouldn't have to spin yourself into a frenzy.

That was a long post lol

 

[Valcazar]

It most certainly is a dishonest misinterpretation.

When I say "they are not involved with India", is your reading honestly to equate their engagement with India to their involvement with Ukraine? Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not attempting to misinterpret, how misinformed do you have to be in order to even draw that comparison in the first place? Like according to you for the statement "they are not involved with India" to be true, they should not have any military or civilian trade/cooperation with them? That is laughable.

That you want "involved" to mean "have made it a puppet state" is part of your delusion about world affairs, k.

But fine - I agree that India is not a puppet state of the US.

And yes, I believe that you meant "they should not have any military cooperation with them" - especially military cooperation that is designed to counter China, since we are explicitly talking about the US having military connections that act as a check on other powers like Russia, which you object to on first principles.

Like I said - if NATO and the US provide support to India to repel an invasion by China, you will support China and say that NATO and the US are at fault for provoking and extending the war.
Hopefully we will never find out if I am right, but I have a great deal of confidence in this position, based on everything you have said.

India is a non-aligned country. They have good relations with the US. They have good relations with Russia. They have border issues with China and YET, they do big business with China. India will NEVER let the US build a military base in their land, will never assist the US against Russia, will never assist the US with any of their wars or join any of their military alliances, will never let them meddle in their internal affairs etc.,

This is a statement of pure faith on your part.
As you know, the US is allowed to use Indian bases (just like it did in Ukraine).
There have been calls for India to give the US a base of its own there.
They have been steadily aligning their military forces for the last 20 years, even more so since about 2016.

This belief of yours that under no circumstances would India ever accept help from the US in the face of attack seems to not be very well founded.

In short they are very independent and assert their sovereignty and stand on their own for their own interests.

Ukraine on the other hand is a puppet state

Yes, we are all aware that you need to assert this to try and square the moral circle for yourself.
India really wants to keep itself as a power in a multi-polar world. There's no doubt about that.
But if push comes to shove, India will accept help it needs when it needs it.
Just like every other country will.

And you, I am confident, will condemn it if that aid comes from the West.
Because at that point it will have "abandoned its sovereignty" by picking the wrong side in a crisis.

India and China also will never get to invasions. They are both nuclear states and even though they may have border skirmishes, they haven't resorted to war since 1967.

So what?
You are convinced the US and Russia are going to go to WW3 even though they haven't resorted to war ever.
India and China have had a shooting war far more recently.
You have no reason whatsoever to believe that India/China will never go to invasions other than it is convenient for you to believe so.

So this is an implausible scenario that you are bringing up. But even if they do get to war because China invades lets say Arunachal Pradesh, then I would support India because that will be 2 independent countries fighting.

Until the US supports India with military hardware and support to resist the invasion.
At which point you will change sides.

I would like to never find out if I am right, but I have no reason to doubt I am right about this.

PS: By the same measure had there been no NATO involvement and Ukraine was attacked by Russia for no reason and invaded, I would have sided with Ukraine. But that is not the case here. There are external forces at play that are primarily responsible for egging on war.

There is no possibility of "no NATO involvement", though.
Unless NATO had been disbanded in 1992, there was going to be NATO involvement since Ukraine asked to join NATO from the moment it declared independence from the Soviet Union and Russia.

But I actually agree with this, since it is consistent with your position - if NATO is involved, any and all efforts to counter it are justified.
So long as NATO exists, all actions that might be viewed as a counter to NATO's power are justified.
If "NATO was not involved" and then NATO said, "you got invaded, we will provide military aid for you to defend yourself" - you would object.

 

[Valcazar]

That was a long post lol
View attachment 225773

Sure, but I 'm waiting for my laundry to finish.

 

[krealtarron]

Not at all.
I am saying you are pro-war because you have consistently said that Russia was right to invade Ukraine. (Making you pro-this-war.)
I know you keep pretending you aren't saying that, but you have said they had no choice given their situation.

Since no one agrees with your analysis, there are two options.
1) Your analysis is wildly flawed and you are also kind of a moron. -- I've seen your posts in various forum here and this does not seem likely.
2) Your analysis is a front for your preferred position, which is that anything done to resist the evils of NATO imperialism and hegemony is correct and proper. If that means invasions of non-aligned countries and the commission of war crimes, then so be it.

You do not have a consistent "anti-war" position in any way.
You may be generally "I would prefer no war to war", but then so is everyone except the worst kinds of people.
What you are is someone who has different criteria for what is considered an appropriate time to wage war and what kinds of war are appropriate.

It is your weird need to pretend that you have some kind of fierce and consistent anti-war position based on something else that ties you in knots.

You believe - like many others - that war is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it is always a tragedy.
You believe - like fewer others - that invasion and occupation of a sovereign country is acceptable and appropriate in certain cases, even if it isn't your first choice.
You believe - like even fewer others - that the invading country should be granted most of its pre-invasion demands if that brings about a quick resolution to the war, and it is the world's responsibility to bring about this state of affairs, despite the fact that this position encourages more aggression, military build up, belligerence, and war from other countries in the future. (Which is the one place where people can argue that you are generally pro-war and not just pro-war in this case.)

All of that is fine, even if people will disagree with you.
But since you seem to find it important to pretend that you have a completely anti-war position and your preferences are based on that, you end up arguing in ways that make you look ridiculous as you consistently say that the position that supports Russia's war as the only choice that they had to make is an anti-war position and adopt positions and policies that are inconsistent when applied to any other situation since they are post-hoc justifications.

Again, if you simply owned your "NATO must be broken up and a multi-polar global order created" you wouldn't have to spin yourself into a frenzy.

There is a fundamental logical fallacy in your argument (as well as the others on this board) that is brought on by ideological biases. You as well as the others on this board, have this problem of not taking a statement at its face value and intent, instead making extrapolations to draw the conclusions that you believe are true (or want to be true) but they are fundamentally informed by your biases or predefined notions.

If I say Russia had no other choice than to invade, that is NOT a pro-this-war or pro-any-war position in anyway. A pro-war statement would be direct - "I support Russia's invasion of Ukraine". Which I have not argued or said. I have however repeatedly said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not justified. So,

1. Why do you leave that direct statement out and instead draw your own conclusions which does not even logically follow ? Because of your ideological biases.

2. Wars occur. There are reasons why they do. Analyzing the reason for this war, and blaming the appropriate party - in this case NATO expansion (even if you disagree with that) and saying given the situation with NATO expansion, Russia was put in a place where the only logical choice for them, from their position, to assert their security interests was to go to war, is NOT a pro-war position. It is merely an analysis of why this war has occurred.

3. The very reason for my opposition for western assistance to Ukraine, is because I am anti-war as I believe that the focus is more on defeating Russia, than to find compromise. Heck, at the very least if they were to provide assistance AND if there was a big push for dialogue I would atleast be convinced that people want to stop the war, but so far there is no push for peace (even if you say that something is happening behind closed doors, which I highly doubt). The same goes for dismantling NATO - as I consider them the root cause for war.

4. I have directly made comments where I said there needs to be a ceasefire and negotiations and the war needs to be brought to an end. Why dont you take THAT direct statement as my position, because I have said that it is my position, instead of extrapolating something unrelated from a statement made with a different intent?

So essentially the fundamental problem with you and the others on this board are the following:

1. You are ideologically committed to the neo-liberal position on this war. You have bought into this ideological position that Russia is evil and US/NATO good. And therefore you see this as a good vs evil fight. Which it is not.

2. Because you are ideologically committed to this good vs evil narrative, you believe that if someone does not support western assistance to Ukraine, or calls out NATO expansion as the reason for war, they are immediately pro-Russia and pro-war. The fact that western assistance without a push for dialogue is prolonging the war is somehow lost on you.

2. This war has also shown how western media, has manufactured consent and narratives per their interests. This explains why no western media talks about Ukrainian losses in any way shape or form, or even questions how much Ukraine has lost. Not sure why that is lost on you. So I post from HT. HT has some sensationalized headlines for sure, but atleast they say the other side of the story when we are inundated with the narratives of the west on a daily basis.

4. The only anti-war voices in the west are surprisingly coming from the alt-right. Because you are politically opposed to them, any anti-war position on this issue, even if legitimate, is a partisan issue for you. Because you also feel that alt-right people are morally deficient, any anti-war position also appears morally deficient to you and you end up taking moral high ground (which you do not have). Throw in #1, and you end up calling people demanding an end to the war, end to western military assistance and resumption of dialogue "a pro-war, pro-Russian, extreme evil right winger". This pretty much blinds you to seeing any reason and you end up with convoluted arguments. That is pretty evident in how in every post, you try to twist, turn, bob, weave and spin everything instead of taking statements at face value.

In sum, do NOT mistake your ideological biases for reason.

 

[krealtarron]

 

[krealtarron]