I’d think you’d be naive to think Ukraine would not become a vassal state to the US if Ukraine can somehow manage to win this war.

Because as far as I know US made huge loans to the Ukraine. Billions and billions of dollars. If Ukraine could manage to win the war, US will want payback for the loans. And I think payback will be in the form of resources. Perhaps US based multinationals like Monsanto taking over farmland or other companies exploiting resources. As I understand Ukraine is a very resource rich country and US pretty much only bothers to fight in countries with plenty resources.

At this point US is still exporting oil from Syria. And I should note, the Syrian government doesn’t approve of US invasion in Syria, much like the Ukraine government doesn’t approve the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

When did the US invade Syria? How much of it did they annex?

They control quite a large part of North-East Syria.

US has been active in Syria now for many years.

I think the numbers of US presence is wrong though, I read there’s about 900 soldiers present right now.

https://i.redd.it/f1fa35f2es461.jpg

> Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990

The Declaration of State Soveriegnty of Ukraine isn’t an agreement signed by Ukraine, it was domestic legislation of the Ukraine SSR regarding its future plans at the time, more than a year before the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was passed.

What I believe in is facts, and there is, in fact, a huge difference between an international agreement and an internal legislation setting general policy goals. You can’t cite a requirement to hold to past agreements and then cite as an example something that is not any kind of agreement.

So what military block did Ukraine join prior to Russia annexing its territory?

Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join? Next, what was sovereignty of Ukraine predicated on in 1990?

> Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join?

Putin had been successful in getting NATO to reject MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia before invading either (just before, in Georgia’s case), and that rejection had caused Ukraine to abandon NATO membership as a goal before Putin launched the war in 2014.

Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason. Putin’s war is literally the reason Ukraine has an intent to join NATO, not a response to that intent.

> Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.

Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

> let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003

That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.

> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq

2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.

> > That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.

> You’re wrong: [wikipedia link to 2006 anti-NATO protests]

You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right? So, your link has no value at all in discussing the post-Maidan government’s actions based in large part on the 2008 MAP denial.

> I'm not sure what you argumnt is

My argument is that Putin acheived his goal of stopping NATO expansion to Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008, by getting NATO to deny Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans, that this denial led to even the next Western-oriented government after the one that was in power at the time of the 2008 attempt fell, was replaced with a pro-Russian one (which, arguably, then executed an autocoup, and, undisputedly, was itself replaced in the Maidan Revolution) being quite clear about not seeking NATO membership until AFTER Russia, who had invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Ukraine in 2014.

This demonstrates a couple things: first, neither the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 nor the Russo-Ukrainian War was based on the threat of those countries joining NATO, which Russia had successfully averted, leaving aside any questions of whether that threat was a legitimate casus belli in any case, and, second, in the case of Ukraine, its actually the cause of the intent to join NATO, which the government, having previously disclaimed it, adopted as a priority after the invasion.

> You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?

Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?

You do realize that there was a revolution in 2014 against a Russian-friendly leadership in Ukraine, and also that Russia launched the war shortly after that revolution? So, yes, claimimg the invasion was in response to things pre-2014 is implausible because of the revolution, and claiming it was in response to things after 2014 is implausible because of the arrow of time.

You were asked a specific, yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed? It’s not barbarism it’s realism, might I’d right etc?

> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?

Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.

So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?

I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that.

So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…

> So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery?

The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.

Nope it’s ad hominem and a propaganda technique used when your argument is flimsy. There’s nothing essential about it, you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.

What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.

> Nope it’s ad hominem

Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?

> you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.

Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.

But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s

> But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s

Theres nazis in Ukraine just like how theres nazis in Russia and other countries what your point?.

There is no point of course -- other than to make yet another attempt at intellectual obfuscation, and to push people's emotional buttons.

As to what the video shows -- it was a local ceremony, not any kind of federal recognition of these fighters. So far there has not even been a legislative attempt to grant "hero" status to members of any of the fighting unites in WW II.

And that's the important point: all of these (in my view, quite nauseating) commemorations of either the pro-fascist political leaders, or of the various collaborating fighting units have been at the local, not federal level. Precisely because it remains such a painful and divisive topic.

And because by and large, Ukrainian society has moved light years beyond the events of these dark times. It is the regime in that large country to the north (and that of its smaller puppet state next door) that is continually trying to make everyone live in the past, as if WW II basically never ended.

One could say a lot more about it -- just as there are all kinds of things to say about how collaborationist history has been processed in all the other countries in Europe; including, last but not least, in the Soviet Union and modern Russia itself (in regard to its attempts to all but banish any mention of its notorious high-level cooperation with Nazi Germany from its history books).

One could, that is - provided there was an atmosphere of civility, and of respect for in discourse. Unfortunately this does not apply to the commenter you are responding to -- who, as we have seen, seems intent on dragging the discussion ever downward, into an endless cycle of intellectual evasion and ad hominem attack.

And in any case: none of this history has any bearing on the current conflict. And the whole narrative that it does, let alone that it justifies or explains the naked, old-school barbarism that has been inflicted upon Ukraine since early 2022, as is the subject of the original article in this thread -- is just bonkers.

Wow this must be a parody right? You say prove how this is ad hominem before launching into an ad hominem.

Anyway you argument has essentially boiled down to “but they did it too”, which is a nice way to distract, but a really childish line of reasoning.

In other words: "Yes".

In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.

"No", in other words.