What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[lukethethird]

Yeah, that is your personal opinion. I have another one.

I don't know is all I'm saying, and should I be surprised if eastern Ukrainians wanted to join Russia? Am I supposed to imagine my shock?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know is all I'm saying, and should I be surprised if eastern Ukrainians wanted to join Russia? Am I supposed to imagine my shock?

I meant about war as such.
I don't debate the actual ongoing matters with you as off now.

 

[lukethethird]

I meant about war as such.
I don't debate the actual ongoing matters with you as off now.

Sorry for the lack of my support, waring over border disputes is not my thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry for the lack of my support, waring over border disputes is not my thing.

Yeah and that is still your opinion. But what I were about, was the justification for war.

 

[lukethethird]

Yeah and that is still your opinion. But what I were about, was the justification for war.

Is there any such thing as a just war?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is there any such thing as a just war?

Well, what type of evidence do you accept?
I am not going to waste time, on how come you claim there are no just wars unless you explain how you know that?

 

[lukethethird]

Well, what type of evidence do you accept?
I am not going to waste time, on how come you claim there are no just wars unless you explain how you know that?

I would think that the onus is on the one that justifies war because I can't come up with a justification for war. If I said there is no justification for war, it may be that I don't know of one, maybe there is a justification that I am not aware of, maybe you know of one.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, what type of evidence do you accept?
I am not going to waste time, on how come you claim there are no just wars unless you explain how you know that?

I think it would largely upon the countries involved and the pretexts behind the war.

However, a very important consideration is whether a country is sufficiently prepared for war and has a chance to win. Not that I'm saying that might makes right, but if a country is significantly weaker than another, it would be terribly unjust for them to engage in war - even if they believe their cause is just. If they're ill-prepared for war, they have no business fighting a war.

Example: When German forces poured into Denmark in 1940, the Danish didn't fight back. There wasn't really any point in doing so, since they would have been slaughtered by the overwhelming forces of the Germans. Even though Denmark was on the right side and had every justifiable reason to fight back, they chose not to. What would have been more just in that situation?

 

[lukethethird]

I think it would largely upon the countries involved and the pretexts behind the war.

However, a very important consideration is whether a country is sufficiently prepared for war and has a chance to win. Not that I'm saying that might makes right, but if a country is significantly weaker than another, it would be terribly unjust for them to engage in war - even if they believe their cause is just. If they're ill-prepared for war, they have no business fighting a war.

Example: When German forces poured into Denmark in 1940, the Danish didn't fight back. There wasn't really any point in doing so, since they would have been slaughtered by the overwhelming forces of the Germans. Even though Denmark was on the right side and had every justifiable reason to fight back, they chose not to. What would have been more just in that situation?

Taking that into consideration, the difference in sizes, who put Ukraine up to fighting a large Russian army? Was it the promise of all the weapons and ammo supplied by Nato? Was it something else?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Liberty of Ukrainian people?

[Runs away fast]

Regime change and economic destruction of Russia, same as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and our currently failed regime change/coup efforts in Iran and Syria. We're stupid. Just a dying empire thinking we can still strongarm the world, when the world has changed drastically and we're now a big joke with senile geriatrics as "leaders". Even the Saudis, who we are propping up, view us as a joke.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Taking that into consideration, the difference in sizes, who put Ukraine up to fighting a large Russian army? Was it the promise of all the weapons and ammo supplied by Nato? Was it something else?

Maybe it was both. NATO and something else.
Have you ever consider that the world is some cases complex and there is no true X or non-X, but rather it is a messy combination of factors.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would think that the onus is on the one that justifies war because I can't come up with a justification for war. If I said there is no justification for war, it may be that I don't know of one, maybe there is a justification that I am not aware of, maybe you know of one.

No, there are some negatives, which have evidence. So if you claim there is no evidence for a just war, it is upon you to tell how you know that.
Of course if it is your totally personal opinion and you don't use it to judge the behavior of other people, then that is different, than what you do actually do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it would largely upon the countries involved and the pretexts behind the war.

However, a very important consideration is whether a country is sufficiently prepared for war and has a chance to win. Not that I'm saying that might makes right, but if a country is significantly weaker than another, it would be terribly unjust for them to engage in war - even if they believe their cause is just. If they're ill-prepared for war, they have no business fighting a war.

Example: When German forces poured into Denmark in 1940, the Danish didn't fight back. There wasn't really any point in doing so, since they would have been slaughtered by the overwhelming forces of the Germans. Even though Denmark was on the right side and had every justifiable reason to fight back, they chose not to. What would have been more just in that situation?

So does Ukraine have a chance to win?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Perhaps but I've not really seen that happen in the US.

So what do you think America should do to prioritise its own people that would necessarily require the end of supplying arms to Ukraine?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"You're seriously going to compare the claims of election fraud in 2020 - something that despite the election being thoroughly vetted and investigated several times by numerous agencies produced no evidence of fraud - to the referendums in Russian occupied territory carried out by Russian separatists and overseen by Russia that has had absolutely zero transparency and has never been investigated by any independent agencies?

Are you serious?"

So, that's the only part you're going to respond to? Not the lengthy, referenced arguments that demonstrate how you misrepresented Ukraine's recent history with a very obvious pro-Russia bias?

Here it is again, for your benefit, and for the benefit of other posters so that they can see how dishonest and bad faith you are being in this debate:

1 - Lugansk and Donetsk only "declared their independence" after an extremely overt operation by Russia to install and fund Russian separatists in the region. They are effectively astro-turf organisations that exist entirely as a consequence of Russia. It is hardly surprising that these areas suddenly "totally democratically" elected to become unofficial parts of Russia following them being taken over by separatists armed and supported by Russia at Russia's orders.

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Captured Russian troops 'in Ukraine by accident'

Russian soldiers captured in eastern Ukraine crossed the border "by accident", Russian sources say, as a key summit is held in Belarus.

www.bbc.co.uk

2 - Crimea was militarily invaded by Russia. See above. As Russia has repeatedly revealed in their own elections, any genuinely "democratic" component of any vote taking place under any Russian occupied territory is suspect, to say the least.

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Crimea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3 - There was no "coup" against Yanukovich. He was democratically elected, yes, but then proceeded to reject an EU trade agreement that had been in the works for years and instead adopt stronger economic ties with Russia at the urging of Russia - something that was apparently extremely unpopular with the people of Ukraine because it lead to mass protests against Yanukovich (combined with his criminal prosecution of the opposition leader at the time). In response, Yanukovich signed a slieu of anti-protest laws which directly lead to police killing several protesters. In consequence to the reaction, he fled to Russia.

Euromaidan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, no evidence either way but you know the truth based on what, faith?

Ugh, you ARE serious.

Do I actually have to explain to you why Russia holding elections in TERRITORY IT IS OCCUPYING WITH ITS MILITARY holding votes and then claiming they won without allowing any independent oversight whatsoever might make those votes suspect?

I'm not going to do that.

I hear the parrots in the echo chamber, and who knows, maybe the border ought not to have been drawn where it was when the Soviet Union dissolved.

Do you hang out in Russian echo-chambers a lot?

East and west Ukraine are divided

Because Russia funded separatist militias and sent their own soldiers in to annex the territory.

Funny you keep ignoring that.

and a civil war has been ongoing since the Maidan coup,

Again, a "civil war" that was started BY RUSSIAN INSURGENTS.

Also, Maidan was not a coup. Please stop spreading lies.

so no one should be surprised that the border is unsettled.

Because of Russia.

I happen to be opposed to war,

Apparently, you aren't opposed to wars started by Russia. In fact, you deliberately tell lies about them and claim that Russia had nothing to do with them.

Must be very convenient to be opposed to war and yet constantly pretending Russia never starts them.

they can't be justified, except perhaps by those that claim a moral high ground and cheer for the 'good guys.'

Russia started this one. They are not engaging with peace talks. If you are against war, then you should be against the country that starts and refuses to end the war. You should be against Russia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It might benefit the wealthy, powerful, and privileged that want to maintain power and control in the world but the country, the tax payers, really?

Have you not been paying attention to my posts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, that's the only part you're going to respond to? Not the lengthy, referenced arguments that demonstrate how you misrepresented Ukraine's recent history with a very obvious pro-Russia bias?


Ugh, you ARE serious.

Do I actually have to explain to you why Russia holding elections in TERRITORY IT IS OCCUPYING WITH ITS MILITARY holding votes and then claiming they won without allowing any independent oversight whatsoever might make those votes suspect?

I'm not going to do that.


Do you hang out in Russian echo-chambers a lot?


Because Russia funded separatist militias and sent their own soldiers in to annex the territory.

Funny you keep ignoring that.



Again, a "civil war" that was started BY RUSSIAN INSURGENTS.

Also, Maidan was not a coup. Please stop spreading lies.


Because of Russia.


Apparently, you aren't opposed to wars started by Russia. In fact, you deliberately tell lies about them and claim that Russia had nothing to do with them.

Must be very convenient to be opposed to war and yet constantly pretending Russia never starts them.


Russia started this one. They are not engaging with peace talks. If you are against war, then you should be against the country that starts and refuses to end the war. You should be against Russia.

Yeah, Russia could have chosen another part, but they didn't.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know is all I'm saying, and should I be surprised if eastern Ukrainians wanted to join Russia? Am I supposed to imagine my shock?

Are you going to acknowledge the history of Russian-backed and supported separatist militias in the region, and the fact that numerous Russian soldiers were found in the region with explicit orders to cross the border and assist in the effort of annexing eastern Ukraine for Russia's purposes?

Or is ignoring these facts too convenient for you? At this point, I'm not willing to believe your lip service to being anti-Putin. If you keep deliberately misrepresenting Ukraine's recent history in order to make it look like Russia never meddled with Eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in general - a series of events which CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO UKRAINE'S WILLINGNESS TO JOIN NATO - then you are just a pro-Russian stooge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Taking that into consideration, the difference in sizes, who put Ukraine up to fighting a large Russian army? Was it the promise of all the weapons and ammo supplied by Nato? Was it something else?

So, in other words, when a smaller, weaker country gets attacked by a larger, more powerful country, they should just roll over and allow themselves to die or be taken over, because to fight back might... prolong the war?

Stop pretending you're anti-war. You're just pro-Russia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Regime change and economic destruction of Russia,

Why would this be the aim of defending a country Russia, itself, attacked? That literally makes no sense.