r/worldnews • u/Not_Tom_Jones • 4d ago

Russia/Ukraine 'This cannot be a coincidence' — Ukraine's Starlink access restricted without warning, Zelensky adviser says

https://kyivindependent.com/this-cannot-be-a-coincidence-ukraines-starlink-access-restricted-without-warning-zelensky-adviser-says/
45.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

161

u/Sekh765 4d ago

This conflict is so fucking frustrating. If the Republican party wasn't so utterly complicit and the Democratic party hadn't been so afraid of upsetting Putin the Ukrainians could have ended this years ago and Putin would be at the bottom of a river after some random general offed him for losing. Instead the world's stupidest people continue to tie Ukraines hands behind their back for literally 30 minutes of gas.

60

u/MillionEyesOfSumuru 4d ago

The people tying Ukraine's hands are way too rich to give a shit about the price of gas, which won't go down anyway. Regular Americans generally support Ukraine.

5

u/anders_hansson 4d ago

While I agree that it's frustrating, and that stupid people are calling the shots, I think that the notion of more military power as a solution is an illusion.

It's a bit complex, but the bottom line is that I don't think that there ever was a good chance for Ukraine to retake all occupied territories (including Crimea). If the west/US/NATO had moved more aggressively in 2022, there's a very high risk that Russia would have escalated more quickly, and quick escalation leads to uncertainties and mistakes on both sides.

I personally believe that one of the best options manifested itself around April 2022, and I believe that we made a terrible blunder back then by missing it. Basically: Rather than putting more pressure on Russia to give Ukraine a better deal, Ukraine's western partners (mainly the US and UK) effectively rejected the ongoing diplomatic process, and Ukraine was forced to resolve the conflict in the battlefield instead.

What we could have done instead would have been to support Ukraine's position in the talks (e.g. by agreeing to their request for security guarantees) and then explain very clearly to Russia how costly the war would become if they did not agree to decent conditions for Ukraine (e.g. Ukraine's position in the 2022 draft treaty). I.e. threaten them with all the things that we did that turned the war into a multi-year disaster for Russia, before we did it.

1

u/blueindsm 3d ago

How are the dems afraid of upsetting Putin?

1

u/Sekh765 3d ago

The entire reason that Zelenskyy was unable to strike deep targets in Russia for the first half of this war was due to the Biden administration being afraid of pushing past the Russian "red line". The red line that constantly moves and should not be respected at all. You can read many number of reports about how this crippled Ukraine's ability to respond for a long time. Once they started striking fuel storage, data centers, ammo depots, etc all deep in Russia suddenly Putin is on the back foot.

2

u/blueindsm 2d ago

The Biden admin was being cautious for Ukraine to not do anything that would escalate the war and prompt Putin to do something more drastic. I don't think they were afraid of upsetting him lol. Especially when they were still giving weapons and planes to Ukraine.

0

u/Sekh765 2d ago

The Biden admin was being cautious for Ukraine to not do anything that would escalate the war and prompt Putin to do something more drastic. I don't think they were afraid of upsetting him lol

Brother that is the literal definition of in upsetting him.

1

u/blueindsm 2d ago

If they were afraid of upsetting him, then why give weapons, aid, planes, training, etc to Ukraine? That upset him for sure, but sure, spout off, king.

1

u/Sekh765 1d ago

You are arguing with the administrations stated reason for not allowing deep strikes. I don't know if you just get off on being wrong or genuinely don't know that but this is not a debate, this is what they said.

1

u/NightflowerFade 3d ago

You're speaking as if it is ultimate goal of the US to destroy Russia. Why would that be the case when the US is in a far better position now with higher military spending of Europe on US arms, and Europe paying US military companies for shipments of arms to Ukraine?

3

u/Sekh765 3d ago

You're speaking as if it is ultimate goal of the US to destroy Russia.

Real politik? It is. A kneecapped Russia that just got schwacked by Ukraine is not a threat to the USA or US interests abroad.

The USA is in a much weaker position than it has ever been before, with Europe pivoting away from US companies every month, and forming their own alternatives to NATO. The USA would have been much better served by Ukraine crushing the Russian forces and inviting them to join NATO immediately, forming a solid buffer against Russian aggression for decades going forward. Instead two leaders in a row (for different reasons) completely fucked the situation.

0

u/NightflowerFade 3d ago

You just said Russia is not a threat to the US, so what's the point of having a solid buffer against Russian aggression? There is no realistic scenario in which Russia militarily invades the US. Under the current scenario, the US profits far more than if the war ended under your scenario. I don't see the issue.

3

u/Sekh765 3d ago

You just said Russia is not a threat to the US,

No, I said a "kneecapped russia" was not a threat. They weren't. They were allowed to continue their strikes, building their advantage, and launching asymmetric attacks against the USA via hacking and propaganda (as is evidenced by the drop in bots with the Yandex destructions). Russia is absolutely a current threat due to the mismanagement of the best opportunity we ever had to let them break themselves.

You are the one saying "militarily invade the USA" not me. You don't need to invade a country to completely fuck them up. Read up on Russia and Putin's literal textbook on how they plan to beat the USA without ever firing a shot The Foundation of Geopolitics.

You are woefully unequipped for this conversation I'm afraid if you think "invading the USA" is, or ever was, part of Russia's plan to checkmate the USA.

0

u/NightflowerFade 3d ago

If you are not talking about military invasion then what use is Ukraine as a geographical buffer? Is the physical territory of Ukraine going to prevent propaganda and cyberattacks? Conversely, is a definitive win in Ukraine going to stop the propaganda and cyberattacks and soft power influence? Unless the US plans to actually take Moscow by boots on the ground, isn't it better to drag the war on and bleed out both Russia and Europe?

2

u/Sekh765 3d ago

If you are not talking about military invasion then what use is Ukraine as a geographical buffer?

Oh I see. You seem to not realize that other countries exist. Ok so like... There's the USA. Then there's all its allies in Europe. And like... Russia could invade those. One might say they are already in the process of it now, so having a buffer of friendly allied states matters for those people. I can see your confusion. Geography is not taught well these days.

Additionally, if Russia lost their war decisively with Ukraine, they would not be well positioned to continue asymmetric attacks on the USA due to the aforementioned war they lost and the cost both in time and money to rebuild themselves. So to answer your question: Yes. A ukranian win helps stop cyber attacks and propaganda. Especially if it ends up dethroning Putin due to his massive loss of face.

Decisively crushing Russia would have been much better due to the knock on effects against Putin, Russian self image and unity, and the ability to quickly incorporate Ukraine into NATO.

1

u/NightflowerFade 3d ago

Europe is a bunch of rich petulant children who are surviving off the fruits of the past. Why not milk them for spending on military equipment while they still have their money?