Maoo [none/use name]

Amazon has high turnover because their strategy is to burn through new graduates (the cheapest dev labor) before they get sick of the poor working conditions. This is identical to their warehouse employment strategy.

War is not particularly complex, it’s just not something liberals are usually willing to understand as it challenges their little mythologies (many of which you repeated here).

Relatively simple questions are unanswerable by that framework, not even approximately. Let’s try some.

• Who pushes for war in the first place? Where does the impetus come from? Normal folks don’t wake up and say, “yeah I’d like to destroy a country and its people 4500 miles away”, and they definitely don’t have the power to make war happen.

• What gains the consent of the country to support and maintain war? Why do anti-war movements, even with millions of people, fail to stop war?

• Why do the wars end? When they achieve their purpose? What purpose was that?

• Who benefits from the wars? Are they involved in the process?

Of course, the driving factors here are simply capitalism and its political lackeys, attacking from multiple angles to ensure its seat of empire will achieve the desired ends by pushing and by removing obstacles. The impetus is a series of battling foreign policy think tanks, politicians ready to support military spending, a friendly (and racist!) media apparatus, and war profiting companies paying every single one of those groups to keep the heat up for the next boondoggle. Constant vilification of established “enemies” and attempts to create new ones, usually targeted at countries that undermine the power of the global seat of capital and therefore its ability to exploit labor and resources internationally.

This is why Saudi Arabia is an “ally” while Iran is an enemy. All things the same, Americans would be just as racist towards both, care just as little for their lives, know just as little about them. But one cozies up to the hegemony of international capital and the other does not, so you are to hate the one and not the other. Scads of anti-Iranian think tanks and propaganda while the Saudis get occasional mention and can even murder journalists on US soil and get away with it. It’s not actually that complex so long as you don’t believe lies about American democracy, “freedom”, interest in peace, liberal world order, etc.

So when we know that these are the actors and criteria, why some wars and not others? Why not big new wars every 6 months instead of several years? Well, the interests involved are part of global capital, they respond to the rate of profit and crises of capitalism, and politicians are on their side. Both the capitalists and their buddies in Congress know that war is a “stimulus” and they count it as jobs and profits and campaign donations (legalized bribery) and good press. The opportune time is whenever it can be sentimentally capitalized on, whenever they can get away with it. When it’s hurting the “right people” at the time, where they might have to wait for consent to get manufactured first. When times are tough and “jobs” mean particularly more than other people’s lives.

And more deeply and perniciously, capitalism forms society itself, such as the white supremacist settler culture of the United States where it is never that difficult to whip up support against another ethnicity, just requires jumping through a few different hoops depending in which capitalist party you favor. The intense gullibility and susceptibility to propaganda, in part due to schools’ materials being dictated by reactionary school systems that themselves work in concert with large publishers to create verifiably false and simplistic material into history textbooks, lesson plans, etc (see: Texas’ input on other states’ curricula). The precarity forced on so many that they can’t even consider joining an anti-war movement. The normalization of American military violence and widespread societal myths about its impact, its actual activities, its history.

I don’t think any of this is complicated. It is only uncomfortable for some.

5 million dead buddy. You can’t nationalism that away unless you think brown people are subhuman.

With chagrin

Lucky ducks

I haven’t found one that will reasonably sell me a warranty and that has a good reputation. Warranty cost is a proxy for how likely it will be to break and is insurance against having to shell out another $1k+ over a 3 or 4 year period. System76 is the only one I’d consider and their 3-year warranty is nearly $400. Thinkpad warranties are $150 for the same level of support and $200 for the warranty where they physically fly a person to fix your computer within a couple days.

you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money?

?

Please disengage

The most corrupt country in the world is the one that would be making this change during martial law and this paper, like most in Ukraine now, cover stories from a perspective favorable to the government (take that article with a grain salt of course). My point is that the article itself has a smell to it and that there are deeper components to this unaddressed in it. I also was very clear that I don’t believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I’m not sure why you’re saying the things you are.

You can see that the article frames it as an efficiency problem, which is a commom tactic for a capitalist government to do something it wants for an entirely different reason. I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking. The vast majority of sex work is part of human trafficking.

A conspicuously laid-out piece that quotes social media with no stated methodology.

Punishing individuals that have to act in pornography is unacceptable, but the industry itself promotes or directly involves human trafficking and preys upon a system that cannot provide enough for its people. Sex positivity is great, but this has a serious economic component.

I think a very important question is why were no non-reactionary “against” voices heard. Why only the cons? Why not a selective ban? Who really wants you to support this policy.

Oh, I’m liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isn’t a zinger

I’m very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing it’s only an Ukraine problem.

You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if they’re fact so gonna disagree with you, champ

Russia didn’t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis.

Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like you’re lecturing but it doesn’t mean anything. The next two paragraphs don’t address what I said or answer my question.

But yes, Ukraine had “nazis”, but so did Russia.

Cool, what impact does that have re: Russia’s demand? It’s a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you don’t need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?

I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin

Ahahahahahahaha

I guess we need to invade Russia, right?

Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).

Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything I’ve said.

Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%.

Congratulations you’ve caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. I’m sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.

Anyways, you failed to answer my question. I’m not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldn’t do it. I even gave you a hint!

If that’s the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy?

This makes no sense.

Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: “maybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade us”.

This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and it’s as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually don’t mention “for no clear reason”, because this begins the thought of, “well why would I need to think about material causes?”, which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?

Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do

You are perfectly capable of understanding anything I’ve mentioned. You’re unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.

but if one reads Putin’s On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, it’s not that hard to imagine that there’s a much simpler reason.

Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I am… dubious that any of that happened here.

What lead to the change in Ukraine’s political class? Other than Yanukovych’s reversal and people getting pissed? I don’t know.

You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.

I’m curious, that’s why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says

Your behavior says the exact opposite

To know the real answers you can’t filter out everything that doesn’t fit your view.

Ahahahahahahaha

My apologies, let me make it easier for you

See the gears turning. You’ve been criticized! What to say in response? Hmm… well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you can’t understand what’s happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. That’s a meany thing to say! Better turn to… uh… condescension? Yeah, and say “I’ll make it simpler”! That’ll get 'em!

Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.

Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives.

You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didn’t understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.

They knew what they were doing, you don’t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

Now you’re doing the “I’m rubber you’re glue” thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.

Like any major power, they don’t give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. It’s not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

Who are the “they”? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.

No, Russia didn’t have to invade.

According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isn’t even appropriate for the category of thing we’re talking about. I’m giving you baby’s first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.

No, Ukraine wasn’t going to invade Russia

lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who you’re talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?

And no, there’s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (they’ve been trying since the early 2000’s…).

UA isn’t joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.

Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine.

Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.

Just don’t try to come up with bs excuses for what they’re doing. You like Russia and you like what they’re doing.

Now we’ve graduated to the “lying their ass off” portion of disagreeing with a liberal.

I on the other hand don’t agree with they’re doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I don’t support their invasion of Ukraine.

Ah yes, that’s the thing we’re talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.

It’s literally everywhere in this thread. There’s history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian’s demands.

Show one example, lib.

Yes. “Denazify” everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory… or else.

Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.

You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. I’ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RF’s invasion.

Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else’s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And let’s just say I’m dubious that you’re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that they’re taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that they’re correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraine’s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

It’s as if there’s a country to the east pushing the idea that they’re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn’t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country’s army should just invade!

Case in point that you’re not curious in any real answers.

Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

Ask your mommy if lying is bad

lol

Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there’s an essay for each point.

Interesting that you proved none of them wrong and just said made-up nonsense in response then, isn’t it?

Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

And now you’re just lying. So pitiful.

Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

You are 100% incorrect and I invite you to spend literally any amount of time learning about NATO’s involvement in both Libya and Afghanistan. If you were a student I’d having a talk with your parents because you keep making things up rather than reading and learning.

Maybe you don’t know how to find information? Put the words “Libya” “NATO” and “bomb”, read the results, ask yourself if NATO was defending lol.

And then there’s the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to

Yes obviously. Only gullible people think otherwise. Military folks expected RF to immediately curbstomp Ukraine because they thought RF would use the tactics of, dare I say, NATO countries and just bomb everything war crimes style. RF chose a very different tactic. I know you don’t know why they did that, but you should do yourself a favor and read about it.

Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war

A basic fact. RF bombed UA airfields right off the bat and UA has had very little air presence while RF does basically whatever it wants outside of manpad resustence. You are free to go spend any amount of time learning these basic facts.

Ukraine military is run by nazies

Actually I didn’t say that, though you csn tell the military is run by people in that neighborhood based on their statements. Remember when the UA MoD endorsed calling Chechens orcs and dipping bullets in lard? Of course you don’t, you haven’t paid attention. But you are free to review the extent to which Nazis have been incorporated into UA’s military both formally and informally.

NATO members join by being threatened by NATO.

I didn’t say that either. In UA’s case it was less a threat than a coup, though UA isn’t joining NATO soon anyways.

There are probably others I’m forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I’m not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

And now we return to your habit of, “everything I don’t know is Russian propaganda”. Like I said before, my sources are Western and Ukrainian. At no point in this conversation have you asked a question, sought information, or demonstrated knowledge of anything I’m talking about. But you have repeated some confused poorly-remembered talking points and seem to be very comfortable with lying when you don’t know something.

Work on that, buddy. I don’t think I should have to tell you that lying is bad.

If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it’s quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

You’re not listening. I’ve already told you, explicitly, twice why RF is making that demand, and neither time was it, “well they just don’t like Nazis”.

Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

Right sector and its offshoots are very powerful in the military and the military is calling a lot of the shots.

Also, have you noticed how hard it is to find pictures of UA soldiers without either a Wolfangel or a Right Sector reference? Probably not because I am not convinced you read anything about this topic, but… it’s surprisingly difficult.

And again, it doesn’t matter if Russia did it too or does it more or whatever impetus is making you try to find these facile gotcha moments. I’m not the Russian state and I don’t care if a nation-state are hypocrites in rhetoric or whatever (though RF didn’t incorporate a Nazi regiment into their armed forces, so there’s that).

In terms of negotiation demands being reasonable, all that matters is whether the material ask is directly addressing the grievance and would support peace. This does both.

Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive.

Azov was significantly weakened in Mariupol and UA didn’t retake that city. They still have a large presence, as an official part of the UA armed forces, in Lviv, Kyiv, Odessa, and distributed near the front. They still appear in an inordinate number of press photos and stories, which speaks to their privileged status.

Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

You got the order wrong.

The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO.

Given your comfort with saying things you don’t know, I won’t take your word for it on the exact frequency of military exercises. But I will point out that NATO itself has carried out more and greater aggressions, and ceased to have any ostensible purpose after the fall of the USSR. Mask off, it continued under its actual goal of furthering the interests of US imperialism, which Baltic countries happily oblige.

If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others.

Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya are the most notable.

You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure.

This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

You have been wrong about nearly everything you’ve said, even just simple facts. Now you want an excuse to leave rather than just doing it - ah, my information is just “Russian” (nearly everything I’ve said comes from Western and Ukrainian sources).

How pitiful.

Why pizz-a when you could pizz-no?

It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that’s a meaningless point.

UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

You’re also losing the plot if you think, “Russia has more Nazis” is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.

Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don’t matter. This isn’t model UN or debate club, it’s powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. “Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas” is a reasonable starting ask.

The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.

Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn’t threatening anyone, it was undergoing “shock therapy”, getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.

NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it’s always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.

And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable

Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

This doesn’t counter what I said at all.

UA isn’t joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I’ve argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).

One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.

They may now, depending on how the war goes.

Delusional.

No idea what these points are other than just lies.

They’re a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn’t have expected “disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos” to be something you’d oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I’m confident you were unaware of basically everything I’ve told you given the babytime propaganda stories you’ve been telling me. You’re welcome!

Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn’t now.

It absolutely does. UA doesn’t even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in “the counteroffensive” has been such a completr failure. No air support.

Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from.

I know you don’t. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it’s very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you’ve never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it’s currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn’t joining NATO.

???

The political leadership Nuland ‘selected’ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That’s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

Sounds like you haven’t heard the recording or you wouldn’t be saying such nonsense.

Can’t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or “bad” countries get.

Anyways, you should research better. Here’s a starting point: the National Druzhina.

I’m guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I’d suggest going to some other sources.

You’d guess wrong and I think you’re projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

They’re very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn’t be controversial.

2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO’s advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.

3. Ukraine isn’t joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, “you couldn’t abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option”. Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia’s border. The failure od the status quo ans the West’s ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

5. Ukraine isn’t getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine’s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you’re getting that.

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Like… at all. It’s been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine’s application was denied so there’s none of that either

None of what?

And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.

Russia’s initial negotiation demands were things like this:

• Denazification.
• Demilitarization.
• No application to NATO.
• Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
• Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also… the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.