Comments by "Alphabet Inc." (@official_alphabet_inc) on "RealLifeLore"
channel.
-
91
-
12
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
@jlangerrr6240 It's annoying when people argument like this. Like things cannot change over 83+ years.
Sometimes when I've discussed the Russo-Ukraine war with my father, he refers to my POV as naive, while justifying his views in e.g. political/military policies, and single events, from WWII.
Also, the fact that we're talking about events that might transpire 10-50 years in the future makes it even less sane of you to be so assertive here. For the record, I'm not saying that this definitively won't happen. I'm just saying that it's pretty foolish of you to assert so confidently that CCP don't "really care about Chinese people", and, indirectly, that they would let many, many millions of its own citizens die "just because history, y'know?"...
Please do note that Phillipe wrote "_I DON'T THINK_ the Chinese leadership will [idly watch] millions of their citizens die", not "Chinese government won’t watching millions of their citizens die”. There's a huge, important difference in these two sentences.
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
I'm not trying to legitimise the invasion of Ukraine with this, but I think it's important to note that there were less ethnically Russians in the Baltic countries than there were in Ukraine. Also, Russia had less military power, less [geo]political power and more internal problems in the early 2000s (compared to 2020s) to hinder the Baltic states' membership (or demand/persuade/pressure them not to join). The Russian elite might also have had less motivation to do so, due to a multitude of reaosns. And lastly, but most importantly, the Baltic countries were not shelling their Russian enclaves while applying for NATO membership.
Now, even if everything preceding the revolts of Donetsk and Luhansk really was entirely orchestrated by the Russian state, as some might argue (possible, sure, yet very unlikely imo), that doesn't legitimise murder in my opinion. And secondly, it morally legitimises an intervention by a third party. Well, yeah, obviously it didn't work that well from our point of view, because none of the Western media talk about this, but it certainly did for a large part of Russians living in Russia - which is whom matters the most here, and in the end are those who the regime derives its power from.
Just think about it. What if a group of people from your nation lived in a neighbouring country, and then they were shelled by the current government they lived under? Would you demand your government help them in any way possible?
What do you think about all the Africans who are killed yearly because they foolishly kidnap Americans in hopes of ransom? Part of me thinks "Well, why the fk are you living in one of the poorest, most unstable countries of the world as a white Christian missionary? You deserve this for making such a moronic choice, for such a moronic cause". Yet, another part of me totally understands why Americans want to spend billions on saving these individuals, and, in general, keep Americans as safe as possible wherever they might be.
Again, I'm not trying to say Ukrainians should die over this, or to equate their situation to Christian missionaries in Niger, but it's worth trying to think about something from different perspectives before shouting what's right and wrong.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@virariueb7182
You: "Most of those ethical russians still wanted to be part of EU. Not Russia."
Me: "a small minority of Eastern Ukrainians wanted to be a part of Russia. However, a majority wanted more autonomy from Ukraine"
And then you try to "gotcha" me for "finally admitting" this? This is the problem in discussing with people like you... and by "people like you", I mean specifically how you discern information, and headlessly try to refute a minor point while disregarding all the major points I brought up.
How many people wanted to join Russia or not was never part of my arguments as to why Ukrainians are also to blame for this conflict. If you actually read my original post thoroughly, and responded honestly, you would've focused on this part: "but most importantly, the Baltic countries were not shelling their Russian enclaves while applying for NATO membership."
The fact of the matter is that enough people in Eastern Ukraine was so discontent with close to a decade of suppression of anything related to Russia and Russian identity, the growing amount of hardcore nationalism, and finally a coup d'etat of their governments after choosing to halt the EU-/NATO-process that they revolted. They'd had enough. If the state wouldn't give them autonomy, they would take it by force. With guns. That's fkin concerning. That really calls for sit downs and grown up discussions.
But what did the state do? The labelled them simply as terrorists, and started shelling them. Not only is this borderline evil and extremely short-sighted for a multitude of reasons, but they provided the perfect excuse for their neighbour to intervene.
And it's all so foreseeable that it really makes it harder to sympathize with them. Of course I feel bad for anyone who gambles away their families' life savings at the casino, because that must truly suck. However, at the same time, it's so incredibly foolish and naive for someone of average intelligence to think that they have discovered this secret technique of beating an established casino at the roulette that they (without even testing the technique) gambles and gambles, loss after loss, until there's nothing more to lose. It's poetic karma for being dumb and naive.
And this is much alike what some Ukrainian politicians did. They thought the could bomb away the problem and be saved by the West, despite recent history (6 years earlier) the outcome was exactly the same. And now, they sadly have to take the consequences for that ridiculous gamble.
To sum up: No, a majority of ethnically Russian Ukrainians did not want EU- or especially NATO-membership. And they neither wanted to be a part of the Russian Federation. However, a large majority wanted more autonomy from Ukraine - and for this, they were bombed.
Does this make it "okay" for Russia to invade Ukraine? No. But it is very predictable and understandable that Russia did so, therefore, it's hard to sympathize with them. Especially, when they complain about us not helping them enough - while at the same time bragging about now having the most powerful military in Europe, and that they would have the second most powerful military in NATO, and acting like they can push the Russians entirely out of their own country.
They need to grow the f up, and stop living in their fairy tale world. They need to finally accept some losses. They need to sit down at the table with the Russians, and finally realise that there's no end to this conflict without signing a paper that leads to some loss of territory and a permanent vow of neutrality.
Or they must accept their gamble of Ukrainian lives in hopes of Russia going bankrupt and/or the government being overthrown internally (which, for now, seems unlikely).
You probably don't have a mature or realistic response to this, so just go away.
1
-
Funny, original comment that fails on its own premise. Invades Georgia to prevent its membership. Invades Ukraine to prevents it membership. Are Ukraine or Georgia members of NATO today? No. Will they ever be? Extremely unlikely, unless there's a drastic change of power and political ideology of the entire Russian nation.
Sweden and Finland being members of NATO does not matter to Russia, because 1) Russia has no real reasons (motivation) to invade those countries, 2) Russia has no means of effectively invading these countries, regardless of affiliations, because of military logistics (primarily, because of local infrastructure along both sides of the Finnish-Russia border), and 3) Russia has no motives of invading a state who was already a NATO member, so the addition of the Swedish and Finnish army is insignificant.
[s] Finland should've been more worried about being invaded by the Mermaids of Atlantis along its Baltic Sea shores. [/s]
Lastly, it's pretty foolish to entertain the idea that any country has been invaded over one singular reason...
1
-
1
-
Your point is moot.
Russia likely does not care that much about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, as 1) invading Finland or Sweden was extremely unlikely to happen as there was no need or want for their territory or submission, and it was extremely unlikely be a successful venture for the Russians, and 2) Russia had no interest of invading another NATO country because of the ramifications of doing so, so the enlargement doesn't really matter to them. Summed up, Sweden and Finland joining really changed nothing.
Secondly, there's little evidence to assume any of Russia's most important reasons for invading Ukraine (or supporting the separatists) was rooted in the need or want for their territory (beyond the control of Sevastopol). At the top of the list was preventing Ukraine from being a NATO member, which they seemingly already has succeeded at. Ukraine cannot join NATO with an ongoing conflict, and no peace agreement will be signed unless neutrality is guaranteed.
All in all, this means the only other option Ukraine has is to push the Russians out of their country by themselves, which obviously leads to Ukraine and/or the entire world being a nuclear wasteland.
Go sing about vanilla snow instead of engaging in politics.
1