[wicharek]

This remark implies that the warring parties are somehow equally responsible. I do not know where the OP is (Sudan?) and know nothing about what’s going on there. But Ukraine situation is crystal clear - there is the victim and the aggressor. Representing them as as equally guilty of war is at best misleading.

[ethbr0]

No, it doesn't. It's a fair comment about external arms supply intensifying conflicts, without apportioning blame.

[kelnos]

I don't think the OP was saying what you think they were saying.

They were merely pointing out that the US and Russia are too "distracted" with Ukraine to provide arms to the warring parties in Sudan, and so hopefully the Sudanese conflict will fizzle out sooner than if the Ukraine war was not going on.

I don't believe OP was making any kind of judgment on whether or not the West supplying weapons to Ukraine is a good or bad thing, or is morally right or wrong. Just observing a possible effect on their own situation.

[aliher1911]

Wagner group (russian private military) which is now busy in Ukraine and lost quite a bit of personnel was actively involved in Sudan. I might be mistaken but they have some interests in gold mining operation which is a shared venture between Sudan and some Russian business.

[beebeepka]

Be honest with yourself and try to imagine what would happen to, say Mexico, if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons. Cuba has been under the boot for how many decades now? Are they not victims?

The never ending "civil war" in Sudan is just one of the countless proxy conflicts between the US and Russia

The population doesn't want to be under Russia's boot, of course. Nobody does. But you're clearly playing the naivety card when you should, and do, know better

[netsharc]

> if Russia were to stage a coup, install their guy, and deploy weapons.

So... is your understanding that Russia's been "forced" to invade because the US was arming Ukraine to eventually invade Russia?

I guess this is not an original argument to get into, but do we want to agree on some basic facts before we start:

1. Putin is corrupt. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0 . Sure the people making the video are people who want to see him be taken down and a Pro-Putin take could be that these guys are liars funded by "foreign states" to make propaganda to make Putin look bad, but there's tons of other evidence of his corruption.

2. The person ousted in the "coup" (Viktor Yanukovych) was also deeply corrupt. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/rebels-toured-...

If we can agree that these 2 things are true, then I think there's an argument I can make that the Ukranian people's wish to be closer to the west is genuine and is not a Western-manufactured thing. Because the alternative is for a corrupt Ukranian leader that would've moved to be even more in bed with a corrupt Russian leader and for the citizenry to be robbed of their prosperity and welfare.

The argument that Putin did it to stop NATO's growing sphere of influence is a curious reversal of roles of the bad and good guys. Of course it's hard to argue the US/EU are the super clean good guys, hey there's corruption in these 2 institutions as well... but the way I see it, to say that Putin is the better guy against US/EU/NATO requires a lot of self-deception. Or am I the one being deluded?

[yks]

> The population doesn't want to be under Russia's boot

More importantly, the population doesn't enjoy genocide and torture that comes with "being under Russia's boot". The specific goals and ways with which Russia wages this conquest makes them unequivocally "bad guys" and Americans who help Ukrainians "good guys", even if this simplicity offends your cynical tastes.

[pastacacioepepe]

People unable to comprehend complexity tend to refer to complex situations as "crystal clear", "simple", "undeniable". Others try to refrain from making such comments, if not because they possess an advanced intelligence, because they want to avoid making a fool of themselves.

[potatototoo99]

Vae victis. Whoever wins the war will set the record on responsibility, like they always do.

[mrguyorama]

"Winner writes the history" is largely bullshit. 90% of the narrative about the third reich and WW2 right up until recently came from the very Nazis responsible.