He’s arguing that the West should have been tougher on Putin sooner and the UK should have admitted more Ukrainian refugees. I don’t see any clear sign of Russian influence here.
“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said. “We might be in for years and years of a war in Ukraine.”
Corbyn gave the interview on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based TV channel that has carried pro-Russia reporting since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.”
He added: “This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
He is critical of supplying arms and not looking for a peaceful solution, but that is not calling for a withdrawal of Aid despite the Guardian’s framing.
The second is from 2014 in which he says:
Russia has gone way beyond its legal powers to use bases in the Crimea. Sending unidentified forces into another country is clearly a violation of that country’s sovereignty.
Still, the hypocrisy of the West remains unbelievable. NATO has sought to expand since the end of the cold war. It has increased its military capability and expenditure. It operates way beyond its original 1948 area and its attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time.
We have marched against wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We should oppose any foreign military intervention in Ukraine, as that would only succeed in that country reliving its traumatic past as a battleground where Russia and Western Europe vie for supremacy.
Nowhere in that second article does he say Ukraine should cede Crimea, he just gives a factual account of if being transferred from the Russian to the Ukrainian SSR. I’m really not seeing any simping for Putin here.
To be clear, I dont agree with Corbyn’s stance personally, I believe Russia is an expansionist imperialist power than needs to be stopped by force now that it has overstepped the line and launched a military invasion of a neighbor. But having a different view (as he does does that more effort should be put onto brokering a peace deal) not equate to being a patsy for a dictator.
Translation for #1: He’s telling them to give up because resistance is futile. Every conflict in history could find a peaceful solution if the oppressed simply gave up at the first sign of trouble with the oppressors. Clearly, that tends to be a losing strategy.
Translation for #2:
As for the Crimea where Russia is now moving in, it has historically been separate from Ukraine. It was a theatre of war between Western Europe and Russia during the 1850s, a fact which should be a warning to us today. Then, as now, empires fought for space and influence. Its Tartar population was treated disgracefully by Stalin, and wholesale deportation followed the end of World War II.
Eventually many [Russians] returned to the Crimea and they now make up an eighth of the population. Most of the rest are Russian speakers who came there during the Soviet period.
Obviously, without question, establishing a finders-keepers narrative.
I’m sorry but I do not buy either argument. It does not detract from the notion that Corbyn is trying to tell the defender, the victim, how they should be willing to fight back and how much they should be willing to lose.
I just want to know if Corbyn would volunteer for the front-line should Russia simply regroup following a ceasefire and attack again.
Ending a war by… Giving up? Conceding land? Letting the aggressor regroup and attack again?
… What?
All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he’d put himself on the Frontline if he’s wrong. If he’s right, then he has nothing to fear… Riiiighhht?
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine. Support for joining NATO was always mixed in Ukraine anyway - Before the war, less than half of Ukrainians wanted it.
And who says the war will be endless? That’s another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
Russia’s full-scale armed attack on Ukraine, which is about to enter its third year with no end in sight, continues to cause serious and widespread human rights violations, destroying lives and livelihoods
and stated that over 30,000 civilians have already died. A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
Whew, lots of half-truths and misinformation to unpack here, but I take it the gishgallop is the intent. Perhaps you should consider a ceasefire now because this argument will never end and you will slowly hemorrhage down-votes.
For starters, since you distinguish yourself from “people in the West,” I’m curious from where you reside? People from the West don’t normally say, “People in the west.”
NATO is primarily a defensive organization with a voluntary membership. Its bolstering is a direct reflection of the outside aggressive risks. In fact, prior to Putin’s invasion NATO was largely collecting dust. To be clear, Russia could just as easily reinstitute the Warsaw Pact – but the problem is nobody wants to join because there is no legitimate risk of NATO suddenly attacking a sovereign peaceful and stable nation. “nAtO EXpAnSioNism” is therefore utterly irrelevant and in fact, Russia is invoking a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Jn before pointing to fringe outlier incidents that are contextually much more complicated, or events where Russia could’ve vetoed but permitted on the UNSC).
As for far right neo-nazi groups, pro-tip: Azov doesn’t account for even 1% of the total UAF. Talk about pointing to outliers. But I’m sure Zelenskyy – who is Jewish and whose ancestors were in the Holocaust – is really neo-nazi… Just stop and think about it for a second :)
Let’s not forget that Putin has since backpedaled on the Budest Memorandum and like Hitler invading Poland, invaded a sovereign nation under the false pretenses of protecting ethnic groups. How awfully convenient.
Thus far you are drinking the Russia Vodka. I encourage you to stop being so gullibly duped.
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine.
Incorrect. What Putin actually stated was that so long as Ukraine didn’t join NATO, then he wouldn’t attack. Ukraine pledged to not join NATO, and yet Putin attacked them anyway. But you know, it sure is funny how all those nations under the NATO banner HAVEN’T been attacked by Russia. It’s almost like… That’s kind of the… Point of NATO? Golly!
Russia is using second-hand ammunitions from North Korea that are blowing up in the faces of Russian troops. Russia is seeking help from 2-bit nations like Iran, and sure, some help from China. But China’s economy is wholly dependent on its economic relations with USA, and so will not overextend.
Russia itself has an economy smaller than California. Aid will continue to Ukraine and Ukraine can easily out-pace Russia. After all, the smaller Soviet-Afghan War brought down a stronger USSR.
“No End in Sight” doesn’t mean endless war. People enter tunnels for which they cannot see the end; but that doesn’t mean it’s endless…
So I repeat what was dodged; What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
I took the time to explain a nuanced alternative viewpoint and support it with reliable sources. It’s pretty unfair to just dismiss it as a gish gallop or misinformation.
I don’t have time to sit down and fully respond to your points now, but hopefully I’ll have time later today.
I do appreciate sources, but you should know better by now that the majority of these points have been thoroughly debunked.
Instead of meandering on this wild goose-chase, why don’t you just respond with the two most relevant things:
(1) You said yourself, “Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but–”
NO BUTS. That’s IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.
(2) How do you ensure a tyrant doesn’t regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize? In what realm do you believe dictators just suddenly stop without being smacked down? Did Hitler stop after he got Poland?
No argument from me. I wasn’t condoning the Russian invasion so much as explaining what Russia’s grievances were.
How do you ensure a tyrant doesn’t regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize?
It was not Putin’s intention to stay in Ukraine for long and the war has proven to be very costly. What he really wanted was to show the world that he would stand up to what he saw as the bullying of NATO, the EU, and the US.
A diplomatic solution that would have given Putin a chance to save face while also ensuring a ceasefire would have likely been enough for him, since he knew that Russia didn’t have the military strength to beat NATO and Euro forces in an outright ground war. This, incidentally, is why I don’t buy the direct comparison to Hitler, who actually had both the will and the military / economic might to take over Europe.
As to the very reasonable question of how: One suggestion I remember liking the sound of was the idea to establish a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border in the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region under the joint supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.
Either way, I’m not saying it would have definitely worked out, but it seemed to me that not enough effort was given to trying to find a relatively peaceful alternative to a war that was always going to last years and costs tens of thousands of lives.
Thanks for the response. As a hypothetical: If we could go back in time, was there ever a point you believe the world or specific nations should’ve reached out to Hitler to negotiate a ceasefire and to let him have whatever piece of land he gained at that point in time? What are the long-term consequences of permitting such blitzes for territorial control only to be slapped on the wrist and permitting said tyrant to remain in power?
The problem with peace is that it’s not without precedent; and that precedent is to say, “the bully gets rewarded.” Ultimately, isn’t it the victim who has every right to decide how much they’re willing to bleed to fight back against the bully? Hence why every voice from NATO has been, “it’s up to Ukraine to decide for how long they wish to continue this war.”
At this point I don’t believe Ukraine is desperate enough to take that bargain. I think they know the wind is in their sails. I also think both sides are holding their breath and long-term decision-making based on the outcome of the US Presidential election. If things somehow went very south for Ukraine and they were at risk of losing significantly more territory (not a +1% gain) and Trump gets reelected and the alliance fragments, then perhaps they’d try to negotiate such a DMZ on the condition that they also get into NATO to ensure Russia will not re-arm and attack refreshed.
If things somehow went very south for Ukraine and they were at risk of losing significantly more territory (not a +1% gain) and Trump gets reelected and the alliance fragments, then perhaps they’d try to negotiate
Shouldn’t it be obvious that at that point, Russian high command would see no point in negotiating much of anything? The best time for Ukraine to negotiate and sue for peace is when they have the initiative due to some technical/strategic innovation that leads to short term battlefield success (at least until the Russians adapt). The gains following the introduction of HIMARS back in 22 are one example. But himars is a child’s toy compared to real military innovation, which was already done in 1945 and we’ve been living in low key terror ever since.
But besides jokes about letting Ukraine have nukes again, I cannot see them ever winning a conventional war of attrition. They simply lack the manpower.
True but it’s also true that if Ukraine high command believes they have good odds at pushing Russia back and crippling Russia akin to what Afghans did to the USSR, then they will maintain the fight.
It seems self-evident that the victim shall decide what cards they want to play in this moment, and they’re resolved to fight. That’s nobody’s decision but theirs.
I’ll add that Ukraine has clearly shown what Intelligence and Technological Superiority can do to offset manpower advantages.
Again, while there are definitely some parallels between Putin’s annexation of Crimea and Hitler’s of the Sudetenland, there are also plenty of differences that make a direct comparison complicated and not altogether helpful. Hitler’s goals were obviously more wide-ranging, proactive, and expansionist, whereas Putin’s were much more localized and reactive to a perceived threat. A diplomatic solution didn’t work with Hitler but it might have for Putin.
I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want to fight to the bitter end, but how much longer will that take? How many more lives will be lost? Is a military victory even likely?
With Ukraine recently being given access to long-range US missiles with which they have conducted strikes within Russian territory, the war seems to be gradually escalating with neither side willing to back down.
Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.
Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that “argumentation” line you’re parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it’s not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the “Saddam was a murderous dictator” is a totally bollocks excuse).
Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.
In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.
Your whole “argument” is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.
You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism
Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?
the involvement of neo-nazi far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine were legitimate grievances for Russia.
Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.
Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.
Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO.
Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It’s all about political will.
And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia’s lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.
Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed
Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.
A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said “ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU”? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?
Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.
In Russia’s mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their “master” country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole “NATO expansion” narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.
The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.
Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.
Those are only a problem for Russia’s ambitions to conquer Ukraine. I.e. a problem for Putin’s ambitions, not Russians. NATO won’t even step into Ukraine to save an ally let alone invade a nuclear power like Russia.
Putin could’ve maintained good relations with gas importers, spent all this massive military funding on economic and infrastructure investments, and everyone but Putin would be happier for it.
So… Touting the Russian narrative.
Anyone who’s been following the Ukraine conflict from the start knows this is a Russian talking-point.
And who says the war will be endless? That’s another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
He’s arguing that the West should have been tougher on Putin sooner and the UK should have admitted more Ukrainian refugees. I don’t see any clear sign of Russian influence here.
really parroting Putin’s talking points there
Cute but it’s the “…but” following that softening blow, obviously.
So why is Corbyn speaking on behalf of the victim and telling them what they should be okay with giving up?
Can you point to the quote where he says Ukraine should give up and what they should give up to make peace?
I’ll do one better:
Corbyn called for withdrawal of aid for Ukraine by the West.
Corbyn expects Ukraine to cede Crimea - 17% of Ukrainian Sovereign territory
the first one
He is critical of supplying arms and not looking for a peaceful solution, but that is not calling for a withdrawal of Aid despite the Guardian’s framing.
The second is from 2014 in which he says:
Nowhere in that second article does he say Ukraine should cede Crimea, he just gives a factual account of if being transferred from the Russian to the Ukrainian SSR. I’m really not seeing any simping for Putin here.
To be clear, I dont agree with Corbyn’s stance personally, I believe Russia is an expansionist imperialist power than needs to be stopped by force now that it has overstepped the line and launched a military invasion of a neighbor. But having a different view (as he does does that more effort should be put onto brokering a peace deal) not equate to being a patsy for a dictator.
Translation for #1: He’s telling them to give up because resistance is futile. Every conflict in history could find a peaceful solution if the oppressed simply gave up at the first sign of trouble with the oppressors. Clearly, that tends to be a losing strategy.
Translation for #2:
Obviously, without question, establishing a finders-keepers narrative.
I’m sorry but I do not buy either argument. It does not detract from the notion that Corbyn is trying to tell the defender, the victim, how they should be willing to fight back and how much they should be willing to lose.
I just want to know if Corbyn would volunteer for the front-line should Russia simply regroup following a ceasefire and attack again.
Ugh, embarrassing take. Do you think somebody talking about ending a war is betraying…yeah, what again?
Ending a war by… Giving up? Conceding land? Letting the aggressor regroup and attack again?
… What?
All I want to know is if Corbyn is so confident in his ceasefire plan that he’d put himself on the Frontline if he’s wrong. If he’s right, then he has nothing to fear… Riiiighhht?
The Russia/Ukraine conflict is a lot more complex than people in the West generally think.
You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism and the involvement of neo-nazi, far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine, along with US State Department involvement, were legitimate grievances for Russia. (There’s a great interview with a Ukrainian sociologist here that I think explains things in a fairly even handed way).
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine. Support for joining NATO was always mixed in Ukraine anyway - Before the war, less than half of Ukrainians wanted it.
Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO. Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed (edit: or wounded). A recent UN report said:
and stated that over 30,000 civilians have already died. A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
Whew, lots of half-truths and misinformation to unpack here, but I take it the gishgallop is the intent. Perhaps you should consider a ceasefire now because this argument will never end and you will slowly hemorrhage down-votes.
For starters, since you distinguish yourself from “people in the West,” I’m curious from where you reside? People from the West don’t normally say, “People in the west.”
NATO is primarily a defensive organization with a voluntary membership. Its bolstering is a direct reflection of the outside aggressive risks. In fact, prior to Putin’s invasion NATO was largely collecting dust. To be clear, Russia could just as easily reinstitute the Warsaw Pact – but the problem is nobody wants to join because there is no legitimate risk of NATO suddenly attacking a sovereign peaceful and stable nation. “nAtO EXpAnSioNism” is therefore utterly irrelevant and in fact, Russia is invoking a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Jn before pointing to fringe outlier incidents that are contextually much more complicated, or events where Russia could’ve vetoed but permitted on the UNSC).
As for far right neo-nazi groups, pro-tip: Azov doesn’t account for even 1% of the total UAF. Talk about pointing to outliers. But I’m sure Zelenskyy – who is Jewish and whose ancestors were in the Holocaust – is really neo-nazi… Just stop and think about it for a second :)
Let’s not forget that Putin has since backpedaled on the Budest Memorandum and like Hitler invading Poland, invaded a sovereign nation under the false pretenses of protecting ethnic groups. How awfully convenient.
Thus far you are drinking the Russia Vodka. I encourage you to stop being so gullibly duped.
Incorrect. What Putin actually stated was that so long as Ukraine didn’t join NATO, then he wouldn’t attack. Ukraine pledged to not join NATO, and yet Putin attacked them anyway. But you know, it sure is funny how all those nations under the NATO banner HAVEN’T been attacked by Russia. It’s almost like… That’s kind of the… Point of NATO? Golly!
Russia is using second-hand ammunitions from North Korea that are blowing up in the faces of Russian troops. Russia is seeking help from 2-bit nations like Iran, and sure, some help from China. But China’s economy is wholly dependent on its economic relations with USA, and so will not overextend.
Russia itself has an economy smaller than California. Aid will continue to Ukraine and Ukraine can easily out-pace Russia. After all, the smaller Soviet-Afghan War brought down a stronger USSR.
“No End in Sight” doesn’t mean endless war. People enter tunnels for which they cannot see the end; but that doesn’t mean it’s endless…
So I repeat what was dodged; What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
I took the time to explain a nuanced alternative viewpoint and support it with reliable sources. It’s pretty unfair to just dismiss it as a gish gallop or misinformation.
I don’t have time to sit down and fully respond to your points now, but hopefully I’ll have time later today.
I do appreciate sources, but you should know better by now that the majority of these points have been thoroughly debunked.
Instead of meandering on this wild goose-chase, why don’t you just respond with the two most relevant things:
(1) You said yourself, “Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but–”
NO BUTS. That’s IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.
(2) How do you ensure a tyrant doesn’t regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize? In what realm do you believe dictators just suddenly stop without being smacked down? Did Hitler stop after he got Poland?
No argument from me. I wasn’t condoning the Russian invasion so much as explaining what Russia’s grievances were.
It was not Putin’s intention to stay in Ukraine for long and the war has proven to be very costly. What he really wanted was to show the world that he would stand up to what he saw as the bullying of NATO, the EU, and the US.
A diplomatic solution that would have given Putin a chance to save face while also ensuring a ceasefire would have likely been enough for him, since he knew that Russia didn’t have the military strength to beat NATO and Euro forces in an outright ground war. This, incidentally, is why I don’t buy the direct comparison to Hitler, who actually had both the will and the military / economic might to take over Europe.
As to the very reasonable question of how: One suggestion I remember liking the sound of was the idea to establish a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border in the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region under the joint supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.
Either way, I’m not saying it would have definitely worked out, but it seemed to me that not enough effort was given to trying to find a relatively peaceful alternative to a war that was always going to last years and costs tens of thousands of lives.
Thanks for the response. As a hypothetical: If we could go back in time, was there ever a point you believe the world or specific nations should’ve reached out to Hitler to negotiate a ceasefire and to let him have whatever piece of land he gained at that point in time? What are the long-term consequences of permitting such blitzes for territorial control only to be slapped on the wrist and permitting said tyrant to remain in power?
The problem with peace is that it’s not without precedent; and that precedent is to say, “the bully gets rewarded.” Ultimately, isn’t it the victim who has every right to decide how much they’re willing to bleed to fight back against the bully? Hence why every voice from NATO has been, “it’s up to Ukraine to decide for how long they wish to continue this war.”
At this point I don’t believe Ukraine is desperate enough to take that bargain. I think they know the wind is in their sails. I also think both sides are holding their breath and long-term decision-making based on the outcome of the US Presidential election. If things somehow went very south for Ukraine and they were at risk of losing significantly more territory (not a +1% gain) and Trump gets reelected and the alliance fragments, then perhaps they’d try to negotiate such a DMZ on the condition that they also get into NATO to ensure Russia will not re-arm and attack refreshed.
Shouldn’t it be obvious that at that point, Russian high command would see no point in negotiating much of anything? The best time for Ukraine to negotiate and sue for peace is when they have the initiative due to some technical/strategic innovation that leads to short term battlefield success (at least until the Russians adapt). The gains following the introduction of HIMARS back in 22 are one example. But himars is a child’s toy compared to real military innovation, which was already done in 1945 and we’ve been living in low key terror ever since.
But besides jokes about letting Ukraine have nukes again, I cannot see them ever winning a conventional war of attrition. They simply lack the manpower.
True but it’s also true that if Ukraine high command believes they have good odds at pushing Russia back and crippling Russia akin to what Afghans did to the USSR, then they will maintain the fight.
It seems self-evident that the victim shall decide what cards they want to play in this moment, and they’re resolved to fight. That’s nobody’s decision but theirs.
I’ll add that Ukraine has clearly shown what Intelligence and Technological Superiority can do to offset manpower advantages.
Again, while there are definitely some parallels between Putin’s annexation of Crimea and Hitler’s of the Sudetenland, there are also plenty of differences that make a direct comparison complicated and not altogether helpful. Hitler’s goals were obviously more wide-ranging, proactive, and expansionist, whereas Putin’s were much more localized and reactive to a perceived threat. A diplomatic solution didn’t work with Hitler but it might have for Putin.
I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want to fight to the bitter end, but how much longer will that take? How many more lives will be lost? Is a military victory even likely?
With Ukraine recently being given access to long-range US missiles with which they have conducted strikes within Russian territory, the war seems to be gradually escalating with neither side willing to back down.
Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.
Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that “argumentation” line you’re parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it’s not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the “Saddam was a murderous dictator” is a totally bollocks excuse).
Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.
In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.
Your whole “argument” is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.
Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?
Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.
Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.
Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It’s all about political will.
And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia’s lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.
Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.
What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said “ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU”? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?
Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.
In Russia’s mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their “master” country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole “NATO expansion” narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.
The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.
Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.
Those are only a problem for Russia’s ambitions to conquer Ukraine. I.e. a problem for Putin’s ambitions, not Russians. NATO won’t even step into Ukraine to save an ally let alone invade a nuclear power like Russia.
Putin could’ve maintained good relations with gas importers, spent all this massive military funding on economic and infrastructure investments, and everyone but Putin would be happier for it.