politics

Liberals as usual ignore context of Russia's invasion (NATO's instigations & Western support of coup in Ukraine & ethnic Russian majority in East Ukraine)

But at the end of the day, Putin invaded another country. You can't come back from this.

And yes, Zelensky isn't diplomatic enough, he enforces conscription, etc.

But it isn't crazy to ask for security guarantees upon a peace agreement.

What an embarrassment for everyone involved in yesterday's spat.

Also remember: Neither libs nor cons show an ounce of sympathy for the 20x more civilian Muslims killed a few thousand kilometres south of Ukraine.

It's essential to understand how surprisingly effective the Russian propaganda is, and unfortunately there are times when the Ukrainian government makes their job all too easy. Even so, it's crystal clear who's on the right side of the history.

cognitive science, functional contextualism, tattarrattat

Which propaganda items are you referring to?

I have Ukrainian friends who were denied exit from the country and got conscripted by force.

If it's about the NATO thing, actions speak louder than words. See NATO's actions.

https://chainleft.art

Dad, data scientist, blockchain native artist.

Power consolidation=evil.

Yes, that's how conscription works. But they weren't conscripted for the amusement of Ukrainian oligarchs, they were conscripted because Russia invaded.  

It doesn't matter what NATO did or didn't do–Ukrainians have the right not to be subjugated by Russia. NATO didn't expand because everybody just loved the letters for some reason, it expanded because it was supposed to provide protection against Russia. The whole NATO's existence would make limited sense if it were not for Russia's imperialist nature.

I don't think anyone was talking about oligarchs on conscription.

I don't think you can just handwave away NATO's actions here - if you circle a country with missiles, they'll obviously be hostile to you, that's not difficult to understand. NATO is not a defense organization. It's consistently been aggressive. This is a massive context that cannot be ignored.

Where I agree is that Ukraine has a right to its border integrity. Russia doesn't have a right to invade other countries, even if it claims to protect Russian ethnicities.

You also need to keep a sense of proportion. The fact that Ukraine was getting more pro-Western wasn't an existential threat to Russia; it was merely a stab at its imperialist ambitions. You can understand at the theoretical level that Putin wanted to show he has big balls, but you cannot justify all the death and destruction with it.

I'm not sure what's your point, though. 

Sure, it's always important to see things in a context (and that is so much more than just “NATO got closer to Russia”), but when you make it seem like the abuser and the victim are equally to blame, then it's an entire different thing.

I would agree if you've just pointed out the asymmetrical power difference between Ukraine and Russia post-invasion (mind you, I never defended cutting off arming NOW). But pre-invasion NATO placing missiles all around a country can absolutely be interpreted an existential threat to the country they're being placed around.

I also don't agree that Putin did it "to show he has big balls". It looks like he tangibly wanted to topple Ukrainian gov't but failed miserably.