Geopolitics (Too "Whataboutery" for Other Threads).

rpitroda

petitioned for a just cause
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
18,946
Location
Los Pollos Hermanos...
I disagree that talking about the role of the US in the Ukraine thread isn’t whataboutism. It absolutely is. Every single nation on earth will use leverage and make deals and attempt to persuade every other country to take actions to their benefit or that are mutually beneficial. To say that the US and the actions of NATO are a key reason why Russia invaded is rubbish because Russia also engaged in such attempts. The line was crossed when it resorted to force. At that point you’ve gone from what is normal in the world of politics and international relations to something that’s not normal and not acceptable.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
pop psychological
again, you rely on psychics for your evidence but I use evidence which implies that politicians profit financially from war, including Ukraine.

you've adopted Ukraine as your temporary host country for whatever reason so this is pointless.

The line was crossed when it resorted to force.
Eight years ago, then.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
Yes. The weak international response was a mistake. A stronger response in 2014 might have prevented the current war.
Initiating a coup and shelling the Eastern Russian speaking region of Ukraine was a strong response. It led to Putin's annexation of Crimea and to where we are today. The intl community, made up of NATO, responded strongly.
 

NicolaSacco

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
871
Supports
Ipswich
Yes. The weak international response was a mistake. A stronger response in 2014 might have prevented the current war.
Do you mean a wider war would have been prevented by the use of sanctions (in which case I agree), or through military aid (in which case I don’t)? Ukraine was in no position to fight a war in 2014, and given how quickly Russia/Russian backed separatists took that territory it would have been Ukraine not Russia fighting the offensive war, with the requisite need for a huge manpower advantage. Ukraine was in no position to fight in 2014.
 

NicolaSacco

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
871
Supports
Ipswich
Initiating a coup and shelling the Eastern Russian speaking region of Ukraine was a strong response. It led to Putin's annexation of Crimea and to where we are today. The intl community, made up of NATO, responded strongly.
Define ‘initiating’ please, because otherwise it might appear you are talking rubbish. Just to be clear you are claiming that the international community initiated a coup? Not supported, initiated?
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
Define ‘initiating’ please, because otherwise it might appear you are talking rubbish. Just to be clear you are claiming that the international community initiated a coup? Not supported, initiated?
US/NATO (mainly US) used far-right elements to help them oust the government of Ukraine. That government was backed by Russia. The next would be backed by the US. Initiated/supported/utilized. Separatist regions reacted to it, as did Crimea, as did Russia. There was some support for the coup in Ukraine, but most of that support was in Western Ukraine.

Russia wanted Ukraine as a buffer state. US wanted it to put pressure on Russia. Ukrainians caught in the middle. That's how we got here. But people will tell you it's cynical and doesn't take account of agency.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
2,505
Supports
Hannover 96
Do you mean a wider war would have been prevented by the use of sanctions (in which case I agree), or through military aid (in which case I don’t)? Ukraine was in no position to fight a war in 2014, and given how quickly Russia/Russian backed separatists took that territory it would have been Ukraine not Russia fighting the offensive war, with the requisite need for a huge manpower advantage. Ukraine was in no position to fight in 2014.
I agree that a military response wasn't possible in 2014 and in general should never be the favoured solution anyway. So it would have to have been using much harder sanctions.
 

Lemoor

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
168
US/NATO (mainly US) used far-right elements to help them oust the government of Ukraine. That government was backed by Russia. The next would be backed by the US. Initiated/supported/utilized. Separatist regions reacted to it, as did Crimea, as did Russia. There was some support for the coup in Ukraine, but most of that support was in Western Ukraine.

Russia wanted Ukraine as a buffer state. US wanted it to put pressure on Russia. Ukrainians caught in the middle. That's how we got here. But people will tell you it's cynical and doesn't take account of agency.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
 

NicolaSacco

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
871
Supports
Ipswich
I agree that a military response wasn't possible in 2014 and in general should never be the favoured solution anyway. So it would have to have been using much harder sanctions.
Ok gotcha, and I mostly agree.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
Gotcha, I'll stop disturbing your fragile interpretations then.
Yes, anyone who replies to a post with three hours of material in it and doesn't engage with any of it in their reply should really not bother replying at all. Thank you.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
25,499
Thank god Russia's invasion isn't going well. Wouldn't wanna see Putin's regime succeed.
 

rpitroda

petitioned for a just cause
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
18,946
Location
Los Pollos Hermanos...
US/NATO (mainly US) used far-right elements to help them oust the government of Ukraine. That government was backed by Russia. The next would be backed by the US. Initiated/supported/utilized. Separatist regions reacted to it, as did Crimea, as did Russia. There was some support for the coup in Ukraine, but most of that support was in Western Ukraine.

Russia wanted Ukraine as a buffer state. US wanted it to put pressure on Russia. Ukrainians caught in the middle. That's how we got here. But people will tell you it's cynical and doesn't take account of agency.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation
So what are you saying exactly? To what extent do you hold the US and NATO responsible for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
25,499
Initiating a coup and shelling the Eastern Russian speaking region of Ukraine was a strong response. It led to Putin's annexation of Crimea and to where we are today. The intl community, made up of NATO, responded strongly.
Wasn't Crimea already annexed before the war in Donbas really took off in the course of 2014?

By the way, how bothered are you that Russia's invasion is not going well? Blame America all you want. If Russia doesn't invade, they don't have to suffer tens of thousands of casualties.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
Wasn't Crimea already annexed before the war in Donbas really took off in the course of 2014?

By the way, how bothered are you that Russia's invasion is not going well? Blame America all you want. If Russia doesn't invade, they don't have to suffer tens of thousands of casualties.
First (Maidan) leads to second and third (Crimea/Dntsk/Luhansk).

Is it not going well? I have no idea if it is or it isn't. The US/EU/NATO/Ukraine are putting out a lot of propaganda on one hand and Russia are putting out a lot on the other. Hard to know what's happening on the ground unless you're willing to believe one side's propaganda. Better to wait and see where/how it ends up.

Edit: one thing I do know is that the US called for a ceasefire on the 13th of May. That may have been to give Russia an "off-ramp" or it may be because Russia has encircled Ukrainian troops in the SE of the country. The problem is that it's hard to know what's happening either way. If you read a Western leaning outlet, you'll come away convinced that Ukraine is winning and Russian defeat is a matter of time. If you read a Russian leaning outlet, you'll believe the opposite. Some of the best analysis I've seen so far basically places it in the middle and says we're looking at a war of attrition in which Russia is neither winning nor losing. A stalemate, basically.

Also bear in mind that I don't want Russia to "win". I want negotiations that lead to peace. I've not taken a side. People standing with Ukraine tend to be standing with an imperialist vision of selective war-support. I'm not having any of that, personally, but if you do then fine.

So what are you saying exactly? To what extent do you hold the US and NATO responsible for the current Russian invasion of Ukraine?
They're partially responsible. No real number to it, but they absolutely bear some responsibility. Were warned about it for decades and proceeded anyway.
 
Last edited:

rpitroda

petitioned for a just cause
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
18,946
Location
Los Pollos Hermanos...
They're partially responsible. No real number to it, but they absolutely bear some responsibility. Were warned about it for decades and proceeded anyway.
Sorry to be blunt but I think this is ridiculous. It sets a precedent whereby any country which tries to influence the politics of another country is, partially as you put it, responsible for a third country, disadvantaged by those actions, to use force and invade to get the result they want.

This type of logic justifies some of the moves the US has made in a number of countries which you and others (rightly in some cases) criticise.

Also, history doesn’t just start at a point in time. Russia probably medelled in Ukraine before the US got involved, does that then make them partially responsible for the US’s partial responsibility? I say probably because I’ll openly say I’m not an expert on the topic by any means.

Let’s be frank about it, nothing justifies invading another country. No one bears any responsibility for it, except the country that does it. Things like fiddling with the politics in a country are morally questionable but something all countries do. It’s on the right side of the line, generally, although sometimes it gets crossed. Invading isn’t and is very much on the wrong side. And even if it’s partially as a result of one side crossing a line, I’d be baffled if you truly felt it’s proportionally acceptable to start allocating some responsibility to anyone except the invader.

I’m not saying what the US and other countries do is justified, but it’s baffling that you’d be sitting here trying to spread the word of how the US contributed to this but remain silent across threads on the atrocities Russia is committing right now. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt but it just smells of an agenda. It’s a forum of course and you can discuss and post what you like and stay silent on what you like, but it really does undermine your position in a discussion before it even starts.
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
2,777
Supports
Barcelona
South America and Middle East have almost nothing in common with what is happening in Ukraine.


2014 protests would have never happened if Putin didn't force Yanukovych to go back on a previously agreed and promised trade deal. Were they doing US bidding as well?
1% of the post to reinforce the argument invaludatss everthing

And the coup in 2014 that caused the invasion of crimea that is used in tge war yanukovych that was proposed 2 months ago as a puppet goverment instead of zelensky has nothing to do

But hey, check how many people mentioned 2014 in the thread only criticizing Russia (and i agree that is the main evil in that history) and is not moved here. Dozens of posts

History mate history matters in any conflict and this is not even 10 years ago

If we split hairs, every comment that appears tanks T-72 should move here as they were built in the 70'

There is no intention on discussing grey areas that enrich the whole portrait of the war and shows that geopolitics exists

I callex @GlastonSpur naive to simplify and i would appologize for this as i was in a family dinner. And i would like to expand. The biden administration is not happy that they kill ukranians. Is happy of having people fighting a war for them against russia without risking american lifes, destroying snd humiliating russia, picturing as evil (rightly so) while they look like the good guys ( not righlty so) while they are doing war business and will be able to sell more oil and LNG to europe (again the good guys) while they distroying the future economy of russia

Ukranians dying, as another US president of tge XXI century said, are collateral damage, and biden is no better than any of the other US warmongers in the history. They are always the same and they will continue doing the same bc murica first
 

rpitroda

petitioned for a just cause
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
18,946
Location
Los Pollos Hermanos...
1% of the post to reinforce the argument invaludatss everthing

And the coup in 2014 that caused the invasion of crimea that is used in tge war yanukovych that was proposed 2 months ago as a puppet goverment instead of zelensky has nothing to do

But hey, check how many people mentioned 2014 in the thread only criticizing Russia (and i agree that is the main evil in that history) and is not moved here. Dozens of posts

History mate history matters in any conflict and this is not even 10 years ago

If we split hairs, every comment that appears tanks T-72 should move here as they were built in the 70'

There is no intention on discussing grey areas that enrich the whole portrait of the war and shows that geopolitics exists

I callex @GlastonSpur naive to simplify and i would appologize for this as i was in a family dinner. And i would like to expand. The biden administration is not happy that they kill ukranians. Is happy of having people fighting a war for them against russia, destroying snd humiliating russia, picturing as evil (rightly so) while they loon like the good guys ( not righlty so) while they are doing war business and will be able to sell more oil and LNG to europe (again the good guys) while they distroying the future economy of russia

Ukranians dying, as another US president of tge XXI century said, are collateral damage, and biden is no better than any of the other US warmongers in the history. They fid slways the same and thry will continue doing the same bc murica first
What rubbish are you talking here, honestly? Ukraine is not fighting a war for the US so the US can humiliate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy. They are fighting a war because Russia invaded them and so they are fighting for THEIR country. The US and all it’s presidents aren’t angels but good grief to suggest they’re happy making money from oil and LNG and exporting weapons whilst this goes on is ludicrous and delusional.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
This type of logic justifies some of the moves the US has made in a number of countries which you and others (rightly in some cases) criticise.
I'm not sure it does. You can read it as justifying the US embargo of Cuba in 1963 but it doesn't apply to many situations beyond that. Absolutely doesn't apply beyond the end of the Cold War.
Also, history doesn’t just start at a point in time. Russia probably medelled in Ukraine before the US got involved, does that then make them partially responsible for the US’s partial responsibility? I say probably because I’ll openly say I’m not an expert on the topic by any means.
Yes, Russia has been meddling in the Ukraine since 1991, or since it became Russia. So has the US, though.

Let’s be frank about it, nothing justifies invading another country. No one bears any responsibility for it, except the country that does it. Things like fiddling with the politics in a country are morally questionable but something all countries do. It’s on the right side of the line, generally, although sometimes it gets crossed. Invading isn’t and is very much on the wrong side. And even if it’s partially as a result of one side crossing a line, I’d be baffled if you truly felt it’s proportionally acceptable to start allocating some responsibility to anyone except the invader.
The invasion was the wrong response. Both morally and tactically (probably, anyway). I've never seen anyone say it was the right or smart thing for Russia to do.

I’m not saying what the US and other countries do is justified, but it’s baffling that you’d be sitting here trying to spread the word of how the US contributed to this but remain silent across threads on the atrocities Russia is committing right now. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt but it just smells of an agenda. It’s a forum of course and you can discuss and post what you like and stay silent on what you like, but it really does undermine your position in a discussion before it even starts.
I raised the issue of war crimes prior to the war crimes thread and am partly the reason there exists a war crimes thread. So this doesn't apply to me. What we're dealing with here is mostly an epistemological debate and things like geography will also be massive factors:


That has changed over the past two months, but even then Turkey, a NATO member, viewed NATO+US as more responsible for the war than Russia. If you polled the Global South you'd get an even better understanding of how people view these things outside the US/EU/"western" bubble.
 

4bars

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
2,777
Supports
Barcelona
What rubbish are you talking here, honestly? Ukraine is not fighting a war for the US so the US can humiliate Russia and destroy Russia’s economy. They are fighting a war because Russia invaded them and so they are fighting for THEIR country. The US and all it’s presidents aren’t angels but good grief to suggest they’re happy making money from oil and LNG and exporting weapons whilst this goes on is ludicrous and delusional.
Mate. If you dont get what i say of course you will call it rubbish

Im not saying that ukrania is fighting for the US. Im saying that the US had been playing Ukraine to go against the russian interests for geopolitics investing bilions on anti russian movement and one of the causes was reaching the climax of the coup of 2014. And now the US didnt provoke the current war but is one of tge ones that stirred tge pot and is more than happy to use ukrania for their benefit

You will call it rubbish, but US had beem doing this over and over. As russia does the same in other ways (US elections maybe) and feance and uk at a lower scale (bigger in the past)
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,364
US/NATO (mainly US) used far-right elements to help them oust the government of Ukraine. That government was backed by Russia. The next would be backed by the US. Initiated/supported/utilized. Separatist regions reacted to it, as did Crimea, as did Russia. There was some support for the coup in Ukraine, but most of that support was in Western Ukraine.

Russia wanted Ukraine as a buffer state. US wanted it to put pressure on Russia. Ukrainians caught in the middle. That's how we got here. But people will tell you it's cynical and doesn't take account of agency.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation
I don't agree.

Ukrainians want to be independent of Russian control. I don't understand why you think that isn't the case given all the evidence to the contrary. Or do think like Putin that Ukraine isn't an independent state and shouldn't exist? Russia's inability to accept that desire to be independent from it is really how we got here. The west didn't give them that desire it came from the terrible way the Ukrainians have been and will be treated by Russia as long as the Russian govt has any control over them.

Russia's interference in the independent Ukrainian state did not start because of Maidan. It started because it voted for independence.( overall 90%+ of all those who voted wanted independence and every part of Ukraine including Crimea had a majority of voters support independence). Russian sympathizers always want to start at Maidan and forget what Russia did between 1991 and 2014 in a poorly hidden attempt to overturn the vote and subvert Ukrainian democracy.

The reason Ukraine had the revolution is because Putin had bought their president and was forcing him to sign up to Putin's Eurasian trade block. Which the majority of Ukrainians did not want.

This is not a matter of equivalence between the west did this and Russia did that.

After the failed coup against Gorbachev Ukraine voted to become independent. I think because no arrangement with Russia could be trusted to last given the potential volatility and frankly the sense of ownership of Ukraine within the Russian state voiced at last openly by Putin in his pre invasion speech. The vote destroyed the chance of cobbling together some Russian led post soviet grouping and was important in breaking up the soviet union. Putin like many within the Russian power structure have always deeply resented Ukraine for doing so.

Ukraine wasn't born as a nation perfect in every way. How could it be given who had controlled it for so long. I have got to say watching them fight so hard for even a chance to make it into a less than perfect but improving democracy is inspiring don't you think?
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
Im not saying that ukrania is fighting for the US. Im saying that the US had been playing Ukraine to go against the russian interests for geopolitics investing bilions on anti russian movement and one of the causes was reaching the climax of the coup of 2014. And now the US didnt provoke the current war but is one of tge ones that stirred tge pot and is more than happy to use ukrania for their benefit
This is mostly true. Nuland/State Department place the figure at $5bn in 2014 when it's said that "We spent 5bn to get here [to the coup stage]".

Ukraine is fighting for Ukrainian interest. US is using that for something else, though. The two aren't mutually exclusive and that's exactly why this is a proxy war. It's why you heard representative after representative get up the other day and say "we are at war with Russia" despite the US not being at war with Russia (officially).


Ukrainians want to be independent of Russian control. I don't understand why you think that isn't the case given all the evidence to the contrary. Or do think like Putin that Ukraine isn't an independent state and shouldn't exist? Russia's inability to accept that desire to be independent from it is really how we got here. The west didn't give them that desire it came from the terrible way the Ukrainians have been and will be treated by Russia as long as the Russian govt has any control over them.
More accurate to say "most Ukrainians" or "Western Ukrainians" want to be independent of Russian control. The evidence to the contrary is the high support for Russian integration in the East.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
That's not what that graph shows.
add nato+us together and you arrive at a higher number putting blame on US/NATO than Russia.

prior to that poll:
A March poll conducted by Metropoll indicated that 48 percent of the Turkish public think that the US and Nato are responsible for the situation in Ukraine. Around 7.5 percent blamed Ukraine itself for the situation. Only 33.7 percent said Russia carries the blame.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...r-talk-show-generals-sway-public-against-nato

might not jive well with the hit 'n run snipe, though.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
It's reasonably close, but Russia is higher than the US and NATO combined.
42% blame Russia there. The Ukrainian number is lower than it was in March, where it was 7.5% afaik, so there's a higher number blaming NATO+US in that graph. 49-51 I think, against NATO+US.
 

nimic

has an exposure kink and loves Joe Rogan
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
24,425
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
42% blame Russia there. The Ukrainian number is lower than it was in March, where it was 7.5% afaik, so there's a higher number blaming NATO+US in that graph. 49-51 I think, against NATO+US.
I don't know the numbers, all I'm going off is the graph itself. I just threw this together, but it should make it clear.

 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,364
This is mostly true. Nuland/State Department place the figure at $5bn in 2014 when it's said that "We spent 5bn to get here [to the coup stage]".

Ukraine is fighting for Ukrainian interest. US is using that for something else, though. The two aren't mutually exclusive and that's exactly why this is a proxy war. It's why you heard representative after representative get up the other day and say "we are at war with Russia" despite the US not being at war with Russia (officially).



More accurate to say "most Ukrainians" or "Western Ukrainians" want to be independent of Russian control. The evidence to the contrary is the high support for Russian integration in the East.
I'm not seeing it. I mean I am seeing them being forced into the Russian army and led to slaughter, which I suspect isn't the same thing.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
I'm not seeing it. I mean I am seeing them being forced into the Russian army and led to slaughter, which I suspect isn't the same thing.
post-Maidan I mean. It may have all evaporated post-Russian invasion. I don't know, but it was very real in the three relevant Oblasts in 2014.
 

nimic

has an exposure kink and loves Joe Rogan
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
24,425
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Yeah, the graph isn't numerically consistent. If you follow the link you'll see the Russian value is 42%. The question is what the Ukrainian value is in that poll, but I'm guessing it's lower than 8% which places US/NATO above 50%.

https://brandfinance.com/press-rele...owing-invasion-attitudes-towards-ukraine-soar
You can't assume they have US/NATO above 50% when the only indicator we have of their "score" is that graph, which clearly puts them well below it. They also specifically point out in that link that Indians blame NATO+US more than Russia, so if that was the case for Turkey they would probably have done the same.
 

nimic

has an exposure kink and loves Joe Rogan
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
24,425
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Also, if you add up their numbers for US/NATO + Russia for India, it's only 78%, and it goes without saying that Ukraine doesn't make up the rest. The obvious conclusion is that there is an extra option, along the lines of "I don't know" or "Neither". So ultimately, even two months ago Turks blamed Russia more than NATO/US.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
You can't assume they have US/NATO above 50% when the only indicator we have of their "score" is that graph, which clearly puts them well below it. They also specifically point out in that link that Indians blame NATO+US more than Russia, so if that was the case for Turkey they would probably have done the same.
It only makes sense if more than 8% of people blame Ukraine, which is possible. If that's the case, then Ukraine/NATO/US are majority to blame (over Russia) in Turkey. But then Turkey is not your average NATO member:

From last month:
For one thing, his people are largely on his side. A German Marshall Fund of the US (GMFUS) poll released last week found that nearly 84 per cent of Turks want their country to either mediate or stay neutral – 10 times the share of those who want Turkey to back only Ukraine. This seems to reflect broader disenchantment with the West.

Fewer than half (49.3 per cent) of those surveyed by leading Turkish pollster Metropoll in March think Turkey should be a member of the EU, down from 80 per cent in the early 2000s. Such views are not only coming from fans of Mr Erdogan’s neo-Islamist AKP. More than half (51.4 per cent) of those who back the nationalist IYI Party – the second-most popular party in Turkey’s supposedly left-leaning opposition – believe Turkey should not be an EU member.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. A plurality of Turks (47 per cent) view Azerbaijan as Turkey’s top ally and most important partner, compared to 15 per cent for EU member Germany, according to GMFUS. Nearly six out of 10 (58.3 per cent) see the US as the country’s biggest threat, while Russia (31 per cent) poses about the same threat as Israel (29 per cent).

In the past year, the share of Turks who believe their country should co-operate most closely with the EU fell more than 10 per cent, from 47 per cent to 33 per cent. The share of Turks who say the US should help solve global problems dropped by more than half, from 13 per cent to 6 per cent.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/opi...people-want-their-government-to-back-ukraine/


Their border issues presumably influence them much more than other NATO members. But they are also seen as "non-western", probably the only NATO member that applies to.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,003
The obvious conclusion is that there is an extra option, along the lines of "I don't know" or "Neither". So ultimately, even two months ago Turks blamed Russia more than NATO/US.
Maybe. But then a month ago more people were blaming US/NATO so it's a bit of a moot point either way.
 

Red Dreams

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
54,810
Location
Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
First (Maidan) leads to second and third (Crimea/Dntsk/Luhansk).

Is it not going well? I have no idea if it is or it isn't. The US/EU/NATO/Ukraine are putting out a lot of propaganda on one hand and Russia are putting out a lot on the other. Hard to know what's happening on the ground unless you're willing to believe one side's propaganda. Better to wait and see where/how it ends up.

Edit: one thing I do know is that the US called for a ceasefire on the 13th of May. That may have been to give Russia an "off-ramp" or it may be because Russia has encircled Ukrainian troops in the SE of the country. The problem is that it's hard to know what's happening either way. If you read a Western leaning outlet, you'll come away convinced that Ukraine is winning and Russian defeat is a matter of time. If you read a Russian leaning outlet, you'll believe the opposite. Some of the best analysis I've seen so far basically places it in the middle and says we're looking at a war of attrition in which Russia is neither winning nor losing. A stalemate, basically.

Also bear in mind that I don't want Russia to "win". I want negotiations that lead to peace. I've not taken a side. People standing with Ukraine tend to be standing with an imperialist vision of selective war-support. I'm not having any of that, personally, but if you do then fine.


They're partially responsible. No real number to it, but they absolutely bear some responsibility. Were warned about it for decades and proceeded anyway.

Agree with most of what you have said. But especially the bolded part.

The only people who benefit from this war are arms manufacturers.

Ukrainians
Russians
Americans
Countries hosting the refugees all are losing.
 

Don't Kill Bill

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
5,364
post-Maidan I mean. It may have all evaporated post-Russian invasion. I don't know, but it was very real in the three relevant Oblasts in 2014.
So in your opinion the vote in 91 on independence and Russian recognition of it borders as they stood is irrelevant?

Negated in your view because for a while during a crisis produced by Russia in the first place, an indeterminant percentage of some parts of the Ukraine may have supported an anti Nazi resistance to a non existent threat created by Russia.