Stainless Steel Mouse
3 min readMay 1, 2022

--

It isn't extremist to have a view that differs from official bellicose state department positions. In answer to your points:

1) That was a coup. There is no way to prove it, of course, but it followed the standard and very successful regime-change pattern we've seen over and over in many places around the world. Gather a mob, rev 'em up and add in provocateurs and violence to chase out the old government.

2) The simmering war that followed in the Donbas somewhat ironically mirrors the current one--breakaway regions fighting a larger power to achieve self determination. Shouldn't the people of Donbas be permitted to choose their own destiny? :) and shouldn't the war dead in Ukraine be attributed to America for supplying and training them?

3) If Ukraine couldn't join NATO, then it's a reasonable and extremely easy demand to meet. All they had to do was say, "OK, NATO won't let us join anyway, so...we won't join NATO!" Why resist it?

4) I do believe that the fascists can be found in Ukraine. Have you noticed those Nazi tatoos? Seen the videos of some of them doing the Nazi salute? Some of them are genuine Nazis, loud and proud. Not all, but some. It's undeniable. Russia lost too many people in WW2 to the Nazis to tolerate them in their country.

As for who is going to win, we shall see, but I think that if the army at the Donbas is destroyed everything will change. Ukraine fights bravely, but losing that army is probably the end.

That video is too long to watch for just a comment, but my politics are libertarian peacenik in nature. Training an army on Russia's doorstep was highly provocative and shouldn't have been done. This war was a predictable outcome. Certainly America would never have tolerated a similar policy from Russia and China, and we proved that by our behavior in the Cuban missile crisis as well as other Soviet efforts in central and south America.

5) We're back to the definition of a coup? Look. It walked like a duck, it had feathers like a duck, and it quacked like a duck. It was a duck.

You're right about their intentions, but probably wrong about their tactics. I believe they're now going to take the Black sea coast, some of the Southern cities and the East. Agreeing to their terms at the outset could have avoided this war and limited their gains to Donbas, which was a lost cause.

It makes people feel better to think that Russia is doing poorly on the field, but it is not. Most people, myself included, thought Ukraine was going to lose in a blitzkrieg, but they did better than anyone expected. The most reasonable explanation I have heard of the behavior of the Russian forces near Kiev was that the army was there to take Kiev should they simply surrender, and failing that to threaten Kiev and force defenders to remain in the region while Russia worked on the south and encircled the Donbas army.

There is an important piece of information to consider when you listen to mainstream Western sources for news, which is the lack of Ukrainian victories. Western media dearly wishes to report them, but there are no videos of thousands of Russia troops surrendering to Ukrainian forces and all the excitement such surrenders would engender.

Also note that Russia has gone light on the Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. Water and power are still working in the large Ukrainian cities like Kiev, and they could be put out with a single missile strike. Russian focus is on defeating the Ukrainian army decisively and forcing terms at the table.

Keep your eye on Polish behavior. There are reports that the Poles are gathering forces on the Ukrainian border with an eye to entering the war. If that happens, your nuclear war scenario seems much more likely.

Finally, stop watching mainstream news reports about the war. At the very least watch with skepticism. They are trying, very successfuly, to drum up support for a war that should be shut down as quickly as possible. The Pentagon, believe it or not, seems to be the adults in the room and are dragging their feet. Anything they say is far more trustworthy than the State department, which is full of bad ideas.

--

--

Responses (1)