pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @TomK OP 15 Feb \ parent \ on: Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A libertarian view of the Ukraine-Russia conflict libertarian
Lol. He meant (at least I) eastern Ukraine.
And Lol: aren't you one of these pros who keep claiming that Russia wants to conquer all of Europe? how is that possible if he can't even hold the shithole of western Ukraine? you need to start thinking before you argue.
Not all of the Europe, but Putin wants to restore Empire. That, in addition to Ukraine and Belarus, means Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland. He even has painting of tsar Nicholas I in his room, who was ruler when Russia had the biggest territory ever. Ironically, Nicholas I also failed miserably, losing Crimean War. And desires and abilities of Putin are different things. It's mistake assuming he always acts rationally. He wants to go into history books as the guy who made Russia great again.
reply
Belarus is an ally of Russia. Ukraine is a different animal. Putin wants a neutral Ukraine and wants to annex the Russian part of Ukraine as a buffer zone.
Maybe in 2010 Putin had imperial ambitions but that ship has sailed and Putin knows it.
He views Ukraine as a defensive war because Ukraine aided by NATO is national security threat for Russia
reply
"Russian part of Ukraine" is Russian propaganda myth. I personally know people from eastern Ukraine, their native language is Russian, but they don't consider themselves Russians and don't want to be part of Russia.
reply
Myth will become reality when this conflict ends. Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower and artillery and tanks to push Russia out of the east
reply
Ok. you are ignoring any form of geopolitical consideration point i think the discussion no longer makes sense if it is only manifestly argued in terms of good and evil. the Russian army would never be able to occupy Europe permanently, that should be clear to everyone. at the same time, NATO is completely bled dry, both economically and militarily. the prehistory with the maidan coup in 2014 and the attacks on the Russian population in Donbass, the decimation of the population there, none of that plays a role in your considerations. that's okay with me, but you are simply victims of the propaganda of your own newspapers. have fun with that. and, I think I've explained this here 20 times by now, the rearmament of the Ukrainian army, the total shithol of Europe, into a top NATO army should actually make you wonder, shouldn't it? at least if you're prepared to switch your brain on again at some point. plus the eternally broken promise of NATO's expansion to the Russian borders. none of this matters, does it? and besides: what do you call the wars of aggression by NATO in recent decades and the United States? Kosovo Vietnam Korea Iraq one Iraq 2 Syria afghanistan-all with hundreds of thousands of civilians as collateral damage. those were probably all peacekeeping missions in your ideology, huh?
reply
Agree with your analysis. Ukraine needs men and artillery to prolong the war but draft dodgers make it impossible. Even money to Ukraine would not help.
Aid to Ukraine is expensive virtue signaling.
I predict there will be a ceasefire with Russia annexing part of Ukraine.
Why does NATO continue to send money to Ukraine when most of its members won’t pay their membership annual fee. USA pays full amount. Europe keeps welching on its financial obligations to NATO.
Another reason they hate Trump who was the first president to publicize this fact
reply
Putin doesn’t view the Baltic states as a security threat unlike Ukraine
reply