Ukraine war and the need for men and masculinity

[MatureDJ]

So basically 1984? Where the whole world is one country and they are stuck in an endless war with an enemy that doesn't even exist all to keep the population under control

No, the population is being kept in check by feminism.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Uh, as in any war time, the punishment for going AWOL is the firing squad.

This is not a regular war and these are not regular troops. Just because someone posts Instagram that they are going to Ukraine to fight doesn't mean that they are actually going to the frontlines or joining a military unit.

 

[Jake_Gyllenhaal69]

Oh, they'll get a standard of living (but with good health care) on the order of the poor EE countries.

I doubt that’s fiscally possible and judging brexit, I don’t see the Western European countries destroying their backs over this.

 

[RangerMIke]

What an amazing non sequitur. Those are not military alliances. You know what happened the last time a sovereign nation (Cuba) wanted to have Russian military equipment on their territory, don't you? Pointing out obvious hypocrisy is not "defending".

So in other words, USA has the right to prevent other nations from seeking military alliances with America's enemies, but Russia does not have the right to prevent other nations from seeking military alliances with its enemies? Got it. By the way, you do know that USA actively supported and financed the 2014 overthrow of a democratically elected president of Ukraine and replaced him with a pro-American puppet? This is not news, right?

Did the US invade Cuba? Yeah we had that stupid Kennedy and CIA inspired Bay of Pigs invasion that had ZERO chance of success, but the US military did not launch an invasion of Cuba. Does the US have the right to take steps to respond to a threat? Sure, every nation has this right. There are steps nations can take to confront political differences. Cuba threated to put mid-range nukes for Russia in their country. We huffed and puffed around, then quietly, behind the scenes, we removed our nukes in Turkey if Russia agreed not to deploy missiles in Cuba... THIS is how you avoid war. Cuba remained allies of the USSR, we did not prevent that. Soviet troops and navel vessels were still posted in Cuba... and somehow we managed NOT to actually invade Cuba, which would have been a sh1t show.

The US does not have the right to prevent alliances with any other sovereign nation, and I never said we did. Sure we can oppose alliances and make things difficult if we feel threatened, but we do not have the right to invade another country. But let me say again... Ukraine did not approach NATO for membership until Russia invaded them first in 2014. Putin is the one that provoked all this. Now does Russia have a right to be concerned about NATO membership on their borders... sure they do... but they do not have the right to invade another country to prevent this.

Having said that the USA had done some incredibly stupid sh1t with our own military, the Mexican American War was just one big American land grab totally unjustified. The Spanish American War, again, launched for no good reason and the USA was completely in the wrong... The UK, OMG.... there is only a handful of countries they haven't invaded, so in historical hindsight what is happening in Ukraine is no worst than things we, but just because stupid sh1t has happened in the past doesn't mean we have to accept stupidity in the present or future.

Yanukovych was constitutionally removed from office for illegally blocking the EU association agreement approved by the Ukraine legislature and Prime Minister, instead he pursued a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia, which was against the will of the legislature. The Ukraine government is not like the US government. In the US the President is head of government and head of state. I Ukraine, and most other parliamentary governments, the President is ONLY Head of State, he does not have the right to ignore the will of the legislature. The Ukraine parliament has the right to remove a President from office IAW their constitution. BTW do you really believe that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were clever and savvy enough to actually pull off a coop?

 

[SargeMaximus]

I have noticed a change in female behaviour in the last year or two. I mentioned it earlier that there are more gold diggers. That was because of the economic climate. And yes, women looking for protection again now that war and even at home in the west as civil unrest increases

 

[mrgoodstuff]

No, the population is being kept in check by feminism.

Its actually working. In Japan it was proven population decrease is possible via reducing the birth rates. F*ism reduces incentives for relationships and certainly marriage. More dont want children than ever.

 

[Bokanovsky]

But let me say again... Ukraine did not approach NATO for membership until Russia invaded them first in 2014. Putin is the one that provoked all this. Now does Russia have a right to be concerned about NATO membership on their borders... sure they do... but they do not have the right to invade another country to prevent this.

This is patently false. Ukraine passed a law in 2004 that would allow them to join NATO. Same year, they passed another law allowing NATO to have access to their military bases. Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in 2008. That was 8 years before the annexation of Crimea. At the time, Condoleezza Rice said that Ukraine would not be granted membership immediately but that they would eventually become a NATO Member.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080612193607/http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/

For 8 years, Putin tried to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO through non-military means. Then, in 2014, America and the EU supported and financed a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected president. At the same time, NATO general-secretary publicly said that NATO membership was an option for Ukraine. Putin did what he had to do to prevent that from happening. Rightly or wrongly, NATO membership for Ukraine is his red line.

Having said that the USA had done some incredibly stupid sh1t with our own military, the Mexican American War was just one big American land grab totally unjustified. The Spanish American War, again, launched for no good reason and the USA was completely in the wrong...;

You don't need to go that far back in history. How about Grenada? Panama? Iraq?

Yanukovych was constitutionally removed from office for illegally blocking the EU association agreement approved by the Ukraine legislature and Prime Minister, instead he pursued a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia, which was against the will of the legislature.

Just like your statement about NATO, this is patently false. Where are you getting this nonsense from? The association agreement was not even signed during his presidency, so there could be no "agreement" for the legislature to ratify. Yanukovich refused to sign the proposed association agreement which he, as president, absolutely had the legal right to do. Instead, he decided to sign an agreement with Russia. This made economic sense too, as Russia offered him a $15 billion loan, while the EU was only offering $900 million. Yanukovich was impeached for "failing to perform his duties" after he was forced to flee the capital when his life was threatened. Basically, his enemies tried to kill him, and after he was forced to flee, they impeached him for his failure to remain in the capital. I wouldn't call that a "constitutional removal".

 

[MatureDJ]

Ukraine did not approach NATO for membership until Russia invaded them first in 2014. Putin is the one that provoked all this. Now does Russia have a right to be concerned about NATO membership on their borders... sure they do... but they do not have the right to invade another country to prevent this.

Ironically, Tsar Vladimir's blunderous war has essentially made Ukraine a NATO member in all but name.

Yanukovych was constitutionally removed from office for illegally blocking the EU association agreement approved by the Ukraine legislature and Prime Minister, instead he pursued a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia, which was against the will of the legislature. The Ukraine government is not like the US government. In the US the President is head of government and head of state. I Ukraine, and most other parliamentary governments, the President is ONLY Head of State, he does not have the right to ignore the will of the legislature. The Ukraine parliament has the right to remove a President from office IAW their constitution. BTW do you really believe that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were clever and savvy enough to actually pull off a coop?

I wasn't aware of the specifics of Yanukovich's removal; I had always considered his leaving to be a coup (I need to do a deep dive into that though).

 

[MatureDJ]

The association agreement was not even signed during his presidency, so there could be no "agreement" for the legislature to ratify. Yanukovich refused to sign the proposed association agreement which he, as president, absolutely had the legal right to do. Instead, he decided to sign an agreement with Russia. This made economic sense too, as Russia offered him a $15 billion loan, while the EU was only offering $900 million.

This comports with my understanding. Mother Russia was ready to come up with the big bucks, so it made sense from that POV; that said, during my GeoMaxxing time in Ukraine, I got the feeling that the Ukrainian Everyman really wanted Ukraine to be another Poland rather than be a Soviet sister. Mother Russia isn't going to have any money to anything like that again for a long time.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Are you implying that Putin’s cause is somehow just because of this? I really hope not.

Edit: just noticed your last sentence. Very ignorant thing to say with all due respect.

I'm implying your argument of innocents in Ukraine lacks a ground to stand on. Whenever I notice individuals have a great vendetta against someone they never will meet in their life, I usually suspect it has something to do with an insecurity inside themselves that they mirror onto said people. For you, it's Putin. For others, it's some other politician, celebrity, or athlete [man, I really hate Lebron despite us never ever interacting with one another].

 

[evan12]

NATO and the EU is a threat to Russia.

NATO was founded to stand against Russia(Soviet Union ) expansion , so yes NATO is thread to Russia when it keep getting more near to Russia. Also in their Military doctrine Russia is the enemy.
My Mexico analogy is right , because US has been installing rocket system in east Europe countries and claiming it is for Iran not Russia , which no body can believe this claim.
Also dont forget how US became hostile when Russian tried to install rockets in Cuba before decades.
Russia has been not happy with NATO expansion to east from 90's , but it wasn't strong enough to take military action at that time.
I dont know why the media keep refusing to talk about all the above and insist to inform people about only the last action by Russia.

 

[evan12]

Ukraine will be part of the EU, although perhaps only in some special "beginner" status. The key though is that Ukraine can be given the top Western weapons, which obviously are mogging the sheet out of Russian materiel-of-war. Ukraine will be somewhat like a Switzerland or Israel in that there will be a relatively large defense force that could defend itself against a future Mother Russia invasion. Слава Украіна

That is exactly what Russia hate , it was best interest of Ukraine to keep a friendly relationship with its super power neighbor, but the lack experience of their new president made him really think he can challenge Russia and get away with that.

 

[Barrister]

I'm implying your argument of innocents in Ukraine lacks a ground to stand on. Whenever I notice individuals have a great vendetta against someone they never will meet in their life, I usually suspect it has something to do with an insecurity inside themselves that they mirror onto said people. For you, it's Putin. For others, it's some other politician, celebrity, or athlete [man, I really hate Lebron despite us never ever interacting with one another].

I’d be curious to know why you are “implying” my argument is groundless. Because quite frankly your statement that “there are no innocents” in Ukraine is the only groundless statement I can see. Your resorting to some equally groundless ad hominem about my “insecurity” regarding my outlook on Putin has zero bearing on what I took issue with. I am not sure on what you’re even trying to say at this point.

 

[HaleyBaron]

I’d be curious to know why you are “implying” my argument is groundless. Because quite frankly your statement that “there are no innocents” in Ukraine is the only groundless statement I can see. Your resorting to some equally groundless ad hominem about my “insecurity” regarding my outlook on Putin has zero bearing on what I took issue with. I am not sure on what you’re even trying to say at this point.

Yes, there are no innocents in Ukraine. Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Barrister]

Yes, there are no innocents in Ukraine. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Really? Your statement is so beyond ridiculous that doesn’t even deserve a response. We can agree to disagree.

 

[RangerMIke]

NATO was founded to stand against Russia(Soviet Union ) expansion , so yes NATO is thread to Russia when it keep getting more near to Russia. Also in their Military doctrine Russia is the enemy.

NATO formed because of the USSR reluctance to withdraw military forces from Eastern Europe after WWII. Had Russia honored the Potsdam Agreement, this never would have happened. I understand why the USSR was worried about NATO in the 50s and 60s, but NATO never conducted military operations during the cold war, and the first time NATO did, in Yugoslavia, Russian troops participated. I actually served with Russian Paratroopers in Yugoslavia, and we got along just great.

My Mexico analogy is right , because US has been installing rocket system in east Europe countries and claiming it is for Iran not Russia , which no body can believe this claim.

NATO nations deployed missile DEFENSE systems in their counties in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Do you blame them? After seeing what Russia is doing with their missiles in Ukraine.

Also dont forget how US became hostile when Russian tried to install rockets in Cuba before decades.

Did the US invade Cuba? I don't have a problem with Russia being concerned with NATO, but resorting to military force is not the answer.

Russia has been not happy with NATO expansion to east from 90's , but it wasn't strong enough to take military action at that time.
I dont know why the media keep refusing to talk about all the above and insist to inform people about only the last action by Russia.

It's okay for Russia to be concerned with NATO expansion, but attacking Ukraine isn't going to fix that. If anything it will just make things worst, because now Russia has crossed that line... Now we have Sweden and Finland wanting to join. All Putin has done is strengthen NATO.

 

[zekko]

not anytime soon. Unless their was an immediate threat and people suffering, women live in their own world.

If she was stuck in the house all day and the moment she stepped outside she could face death and pain.

"The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them" -
Eowyn, from The Two Towers, J.R.R. Tolkien

 

[Xenom0rph]

The need for masculine men is true, but perhaps not in the way we might think.

Notice how this war is being fought with economics, propaganda, social media and politics. Notice that Russia is actually losing the narrative war and economic war.

Notice that even if Russia takes all of Ukraine, there is no way for them to hold it long term because the war will shift to an insurgency war which will kill more Russian soldiers, which Putin cannot afford because Russia has an imploding population crisis.

And the longer the war goes on, the more Russia will be devastated economically by sanctions and will have to sell out to China just to stay afloat.

What does Putin gain from this pyrrhic victory? He gains the territory of Ukraine (which he can't hold long term) by becoming economically indebted to China.....

There is no victory for Russia in this scenario.

The lesson that we learn from this situation is: masculinity has changed in the modern world. It's not about brute strength. It's about having political savvy to influence and pressure others into conforming to your will. It's about having the economic means to apply pressure. It's about having social skills to network with other people and seek out opportunities for personal profit and security.

 

[RangerMIke]

This is patently false. Ukraine passed a law in 2004 that would allow them to join NATO. Same year, they passed another law allowing NATO to have access to their military bases. Ukraine formally applied to join NATO in 2008. That was 8 years before the annexation of Crimea. At the time, Condoleezza Rice said that Ukraine would not be granted membership immediately but that they would eventually become a NATO Member.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080612193607/http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/03/nato.members/

There is nothing in the article that indicates that Ukraine was applying for NATO membership. Which is what I said. The Bush administration was pushing for this, but Ukraine has never formally requested admission. Back in 2008, there was no popular support in Ukraine for NATO membership, they were interesting EU admission, not NATO membership. They didn't want this because they knew this would trigger the Russians... besides they had an agreement in place with Russia and the United States that they would be safe for invasion if they surrendered their nuclear weapons, a treaty Russia violated. Anyway even if it was true... that Ukraine made a formal request for inclusion, which they did not, it doesn't matter they had every right in the world to do that.

For 8 years, Putin tried to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO through non-military means.

And it was working... Ukraine still is not a member of NATO. Had they been a member of NATO Russia would not have dared attack them so I am pretty sure they wish they had joined when other Soviet states joined.

Then, in 2014, America and the EU supported and financed a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected president. At the same time, NATO general-secretary publicly said that NATO membership was an option for Ukraine. Putin did what he had to do to prevent that from happening. Rightly or wrongly, NATO membership for Ukraine is his red line.

The US and EU did not fund and support a coop. He was removed from office by the Ukraine parliament which according to their constitution is a legal and allowable process. They did this because he began acting like a head of government, which he was not. He exceeded his authority under the Ukraine constitution by attempting to enter into a finance agreement with Russia, only the Prime Minister, head of government can do this... his plan with Putin, was a violation of the Ukraine constitution. He opposed Ukraine's relationship with the EU... sure as President he can refuse to sign and EU treaty agreement, but then the Parliament has the right to remove him if he does not.... which is what happened. It was not a 'coup' it was how the Ukraine government works.

Just like your statement about NATO, this is patently false. Where are you getting this nonsense from? The association agreement was not even signed during his presidency, so there could be no "agreement" for the legislature to ratify.

Clearly you do not know how government works in Ukraine. The legislature does not ratify actions by the President, actions emanate from Parliament, and the President can refuse to sign, but the President of Ukraine does not make laws, they can propose treaties with foreign governments, and the Parliament can ratify these treaties, but only under the umbrella of authority granted by Parliament, and this authority can be taken from the President at anytime.

Yanukovich refused to sign the proposed association agreement which he, as president, absolutely had the legal right to do.

True, and if Parliament overrides his veto, it becomes law anyway.

Instead, he decided to sign an agreement with Russia.

This is where he exceeded his authority. He did not have the right to enter into an agreement with Russia without the treaty being ratified. He should have proposed this to the Parliament, they then would debate this and if they agreed, would ratify the treaty, and if Parliament agreed then they could have accepted the agreement.

This made economic sense too, as Russia offered him a $15 billion loan, while the EU was only offering $900 million.

Maybe... but this wasn't his call, in spite of what he wanted, he was not a dicator.

Yanukovich was impeached for "failing to perform his duties" after he was forced to flee the capital when his life was threatened. Basically, his enemies tried to kill him, and after he was forced to flee, they impeached him for his failure to remain in the capital. I wouldn't call that a "constitutional removal".

There is absolutely zero evidence that his life was threatened, other than his statement that his car was fired upon which was never verified. Maybe he was, I don't know... there just isn't any evidence to support this contention. I suppose if you want to believe this sack of sh1t who was trying to circumvent the laws of his country in an attempt to set himself up as a puppet dictator sucking on Putin's t1t, then have at it.

But we do know that Putin has tried to assassinate the current Ukraine President several times. But unlike that piece of sh1t coward of a former President, the current Ukraine President didn't run away. All we know for sure is that all of his possessions and wealth left with him, hardly the actions of a those perpetrating a coup. His approval rating was less than 8% when he left, so it is highly unlikely he would have been retained in office when he ran for re-election. He was escorted out of Ukraine by Russian special forces. None of his property was seized. Right now he is waiting in Belarus, and it is expected that when Russia eventually over runs Ukraine Putin will install him as the new President of Ukraine.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The lesson that we learn from this situation is: masculinity has changed in the modern world. It's not about brute strength. It's about having political savvy to influence and pressure others into conforming to your will. It's about having the economic means to apply pressure. It's about having social skills to network with other people and seek out opportunities for personal profit and security.

Masculinity has not changed. Competence and influence have always been pillars of masculinity. Brute strength without competence just makes one an angry caveman.