Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe it is because the aggressor is "so exciting" and the victim is "so shocking" in this time?

So many angles to this.

1. Strategic. What’s good for Ukraine and bad for Russia is good for so many other countries - EU countries, NATO countries, USA etc so it’s to our mutual advantage to support Ukraine. Same can’t be said for the other countries on the list.

2. Racism. I’m sure this has been covered, but, white presenting people are going to get hit right in the feels when other white people are under attack and be more likely to support doing something about it than they are when “others,” are attacked that they feel separated from vs connected via visual identity.

3. Marketing propaganda. News media has been instructed to craft the story of this war in a different way in order to sell it to populations to gain their support. Probably mostly for reason 1, but maybe a little for reason 2.

4. Simplicity of the sides: an authoritarian country invaded a democratic one for wanting integration with the West. "Good us" and "evil them" are easy again, like during WWII - and unlike the complicated, multi-faceted entanglements of Middle Eastern conflicts.

In truth, there is a certain amount of ambivalence (on both the part of "western" countries and "third world" countries) when it comes to "western" countries helping out countries considered in the "third world."

Sometimes, it's a case of wanting us IN when they're in throes of disaster-----then wanting us OUT (sometimes with claims of "imperialism" or "colonialism") when the situation resolves itself.

I should emphasize that it would be nice if "western" countries had a more altruistic view of this sort of thing (a motivation beyond self-interest), and it would be swell, too, if they didn't seek to interfere in the affairs of those countries which they are purportedly "aiding."

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 06 May 2022, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To clarify terms:

• "First World" originally meant U.S.A. and its NATO allies.

• "Second World" originally meant Soviet Bloc countries and their allies.

• "Third World" originally meant all the rest, especially those not allied with NATO or the Soviet Bloc.

But it is difficult to fill hours and hours of air time and mile-long columns of print with something so simple.

The first world originally meant "the western alliance", or all countries allied to the US. NATO (north atlantic treaty organization), SEATO (south east asian treaty organization), ANZUS (Australia New Zealand and the US), and client states like South Korea and Japan.

And the second world was the Communist Bloc countries (Warsaw Pact {Russia and Eastern European Iron Curtain countries}, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea).

And originally the Third world meant "nonaligned nations". As the Cold War wore on some countries even made a cause out of being not allied to either side, and briefly there was even a "nonaligned movement" sorta led by India. It included both poor countries like India and Egypt, and rich countries (like Sweden and Switzerland).

But that kinda fizzled as a movement.

Then in the Seventies the term "Third world" drifted in meaning. Folks started to use the term to mean "non industrialized countries of Africa, Asia, and South America". Communist China even styled itself as "the leading nation of the Third World" even though it was also part of the Communist Bloc (and thus also part of the second world by the old nomenclature).

Then the Communist Bloc ceased to exist in 1990. So there is no longer a "second world".

Today the later Seventies' meaning has stuck. Today folks pretty much always mean "non White poor countries in or near the Tropics" when they are talking about the "Third World".

Although im against Russia`s actions the hypocrisy of the so called west is breathtaking.

Russia has no right to complain pre Feb 22 in not wanting NATO bases & eventual US nukes on its border, each nation has a right to choose its own allegiance.

Russia requested written statements & security guarentees at the time and that is what it was told

Seems like this doesnt apply to US in the cuban missile crisis & now with China & the solomon islands which is thousands of miles away from US & Australian mainland.

Maybe we should all cut the nonsense and admit nothing much has changed in the last 200 years, imperialism rules and that is the only truth we just fool ourselves into pretending otherwise.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... on-islands

It seems fair to point out that the Cuban Missile Crisis was over and done with by the end of October, 1962 -- which is about 60 years ago.  Anyone responsible for, or involved in the Cuban Missile crisis is at least 78 years old (and retired), if not already dead by now.

Russia was the one who wanted to plant nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962....aimed at the US.

Eventually, a compromise was reached. In basic terms, Russia withdrew its missiles from Cuba, and we withdrew our missiles from Turkey.

I dont follow.

No one was threatening to put nukes on Russia's border when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Nato renigged on treaty agreements in the munich pact , when Russia withdrew from East Germany . Part of that agreement was that NATO would not expand Eastward beyond East Germany . Then Biden afmitted we had 14 biochemical Research labs in Ukraine . US had big investments in Ukraine . Next best thing to nukes is chemical warfare . less damage to structures.Just FYI ... please DO NOT get the idea, that i , in anyway am pro Russia or Putin. Or
his aggression

Well another thing is, why can't NATO or the UN just put Putin on trial for war crimes? They have done it for other war criminals such as some nazis, so why not for Putin? Just because Putin is not technically in custody? Why does someone have to be in custody to be tried for a crime?

A conviction without having custody of the individual doesn't really amount to much.

Munich agreement was legitimately renegotiated in 1997 and Yeltsin did agree to expansion of NATO.
Biolabs in Ukraine were just regular research labs, like everywhere else in the civilized world with considerable scientific community.
In modern global world, everyone with enough money has big investments everywhere.
Chemical warfare makes horrible damage to ecosystems, leaving long-lingering threat. We're still having trouble with tanks of yperite left in Baltic Sea after WWII.

Speculation is that he may be dying.
He may not value life like most others, as a result.
If he is responsible for a nuclear winter, he will leave a "legacy" unparalleled in human history.

Another interesting development:
Discussions on some Russian media outlets have Russians embracing death via a nuclear holocaust.
Pure bravado with the intention of intimidating those helping Ukraine, obviously.