A UN statement on the use of depleted uranium munitions https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/depleted-uranium/
Is the west forcing Ukraine to take and use that ammunition, or is Ukraine actually requesting for them?
Friendly reminder: Russia could end this war today by leaving Ukraine. Thus every enviromental or other damage in Ukraine is ultimately Russia’s fault by a huge margin.
Friendly reminder that simply repeating that Russia could end this war by leaving Ukraine is completely meaningless. It’s clear that this isn’t going to happen, and there’s only one way this war will end. What the west is doing is prolonging the inevitable, the question is what the goal of the west here is ultimately.
there’s only one way this war will end
What makes this war so special that we can tell already the only way it can end?
Nothing makes this war special, that’s precisely why we can tell how this war will end based on historical precedent.
Which precedent are you thinking about? I’m thinking about Vietnam, where the part of Vietnam is played by Ukraine and the part of USA is played by Russia.
Then you’re thinking about Vietnam backwards. What you seem to be missing here is that the civil war in Ukraine started after the western backed coup in 2014. And the regions that wanted to separate from Ukraine are where the line of contact is.
Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
The regime that US backs in western Ukraine is entirely reliant on western aid both economically and militarily. This is precisely the same situation for US as Vietnam where they backed the regime in the south. Eventually, US found the cost of the war to be too high to bear and pulled out, at which point the south regime collapsed. We’re now approaching this point in the war in Ukraine. As Czech president recently pointed out, Ukraine has around six month left. After that point, western support is likely to dry up.
Then you’re thinking about Vietnam backwards. What you seem to be missing here is that the civil war in Ukraine started after the western backed coup in 2014. And the regions that wanted to separate from Ukraine are where the line of contact is.
As far as I know, only Russia calls the Revolution of Dignity a coup. The decision to remove the pro-Russian president Yanukovych from office was unanimously made by the legal government of Ukraine after Yanukovych – in a bit of a surprise move – failed to sign treaties for closer relations to EU. Saying that this constitutes a “coup” is dishonest because “coup” would imply that the action was illegal, whereas we know for sure that it was legal.
If the west somehow supported this, then it wouldn’t be too far removed from how USSR supported North Vietnam. That said, I’m not claiming these are identical conflicts, but that should be obvious. No conflicts are identical, but we can still say there are similarities.
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections,
Were the voting patterns of the 2014 parliamentary elections similar?
Nevertheless, I think this is your strongest point. Even though a lot of it was achieved through Russian propaganda, there was also clearly some organic support for Russia in eastern and south-eastern Ukraine before the war, and not handling that situation well was clearly a mistake of all parties, not excluding Ukraine.
The regime that US backs in western Ukraine
It’s not correct to call Ukraine’s legal government a “regime”. One should use such terms only for governments whose legitimacy is questionable, like for instance Putin’s regime. The law in Russia states that one person cannot be president for more than two terms. Putin cynically circumvented that first by being the “prime minister” for some time, and then coming back to the presidential office. And now he doesn’t bother even with circumventions: in 2020 he practically just declared that he can be president until 2036 at least.
Zelenskyi has done no such tricks to my knowledge. Thus Ukraine’s government should be called Ukraine’s government, or Ukraine for short, not a “regime”.
As Czech president recently pointed out, Ukraine has around six month left. After that point, western support is likely to dry up.
That’s certainly a possibility, and wouldn’t be a good thing. USA has upcoming presidential elections, and apparently the hopefuls are dementiac old man and convicted criminal old man. If old man B somehow attains both the candidacy and victory, then that’s pretty much it.
Call me an ageist, but I’m not wild about the fact that the most powerful parts of this planet are all run by 60+ year old men.
As far as I know, only Russia calls the Revolution of Dignity a coup.
The coup was extensively documented in western media, I find it incredible that anybody could be completely unaware of all that reporting https://archive.ph/BAxYc
Were the voting patterns of the 2014 parliamentary elections similar?
I recommend watching the video linked in the comment which goes into a deep discussion of the background politics and the elections.
Even though a lot of it was achieved through Russian propaganda, there was also clearly some organic support for Russia in eastern and south-eastern Ukraine before the war, and not handling that situation well was clearly a mistake of all parties, not excluding Ukraine.
Claiming that this was achieved through Russian propaganda shows a profound lack of understanding of history of the region on your part. The reality is that large portions of Ukrainian population in the east are Russian speakers, and have family ties in Russia going back generations. The coup regime targeting Russian speakers was the primary driver behind the civil war as opposed to Russian propaganda.
It’s not correct to call Ukraine’s legal government a “regime”.
Yes, it’s absolutely correct to call the puppet government US installed in Ukraine a regime. This regime has now outlawed oppositions parties, suppressed independent media, and recently cancelled elections.
That’s certainly a possibility, and wouldn’t be a good thing. USA has upcoming presidential elections, and apparently the hopefuls are dementiac old man and convicted criminal old man. If old man B somehow attains both the candidacy and victory, then that’s pretty much it.
The reality is that Ukraine is not a core interest for US, and as Obama explained back in 2016, Russia will always have escalatory dominance in the region. Russia sees NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat, and now that the war has started there is no chance that Russia will not pursue it to the end. The commitment on the part of Russia is far more firm than the commitment on the part of US.
Furthermore, things aren’t looking good for Ukraine in Europe either. Anti war parties are polling all time high in France, Germany, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden, and many other countries. It is very likely that current governments will be voted out and there will be a backlash against the war because Europe is now entering a recession and living standards are collapsing.
So, as I explained earlier, the most likely scenario by a long shot is that western support crumbles at which point Ukraine will be forced to end the war on Russian terms.
We are officially on an Nuclear War.
Started by the UK.
