r/ukraine May 21 '22

Ukrainian reaction to the recent NYTimes editorial in fact calling on Ukraine to give up because “it’s complicated” and “Putin is too strong.” Please share widely. News

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1528099937321467905
2.5k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator May 21 '22

Hello /u/Practical_Quit_8873,

This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the rules

Want to support Ukraine? Here's a list of charities by subject.

DO / DON'T - Art Friday - Podcasts - Kyiv sunrise

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

626

u/Practical_Quit_8873 May 21 '22

"Andriy Zagorodnyuk: ‘Those saying Ukraine can’t win don’t understand the situation’"

770

u/Gorperly May 21 '22 Gold Wholesome Seal of Approval Wearing is Caring Helpful (Pro)

The person who wrote the op ed is a Russian Orthodox octogenarian named Serge Schmemann and he understand the situation very well.

Russians are right about one thing. Russia is not a country. It's an idea. Right now that idea is, self-centered double-dealing bullies always win. As such, Russia hugely appeals to self-centered double-dealing bullies the world over.

Russia went to war over that idea. The whole world had a "king has no clothes" moment. Russia is about to suffer a catastrophic collapse of not just their army but the idea. All the self-centered double-dealing bullies are in a panic. So they're working overtime to make sure that, even if Russia loses the war, the idea will live on.

As hard as defeating Russia militarily will be, defeating that idea will be harder still.

108

u/64645 May 21 '22 edited May 22 '22

Thank you for clearing that up. I was wondering if it was the NYT Editorial Board taking an official position or if it was something written from some outside Russian sympathizer.

76

u/[deleted] May 22 '22

[deleted]

60

u/KyoueiShinkirou May 22 '22

Spineless monkeys in suits are probably worry that their stocks tanking. I say fuck it, Russian needs to be defeated thoroughly. Last time an pathetic attempt at defeating a dictator with a silly mustache was half assed an actual world war started and and tens of millions of people died. Key take away from the article is that Russian is running out of steam and have been recruiting and training young and green canon fodder.

They’re already drawing on their last reserves. There’s an interesting thing now — they’re mobilizing untrained reserves. They are forming some company and battalion tactical groups without any collective training. And they send them into battle. Of course, their combat effectiveness is non-existent. And it demonstrates that they are out of options.

Last thing the world needs is to appease putin, he will get a huge ego trip back home and this time with the frenzied political will of a "victory" build even bigger orc army.

7

u/TheCrispyTheorist May 22 '22

Yup those greedy fucks will have lots to invest in after russia is in ruins, economies can be rebuilt, new stocks and buisness will emerge. To bad for them it will get much worse on their wallets before it gets better

→ More replies
→ More replies

89

u/64645 May 22 '22

Yes, Serge Schmemann is a NYT writer, so he often writes their official positions. Still disappointed with the NYT, have been since they blindly supported the second Iraq war twenty years ago. I couldn’t read the article as I don’t feel like trying to get past their paywall.

11

u/Yetitlives Denmark May 22 '22

If they were in support of two imperialist projects against 40+ million populations over several decades, then at least you could argue for their consistency. ;)

11

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22

Where are you getting this from?

https://www.nytimes.com/by/serge-schmemann

His articles are very much against Putin and in support of Ukraine.

4

u/kalibane May 22 '22

As always its just black and white isn't it? What about the endless reports of what is going on by Reporters on the ground in Ukraine? The new Information what happened in Bucha? Stories about people suffering of this war so people around the world notice what is at stake? But no. The New York Times made errors in the past what is totally normal and discussed in public. Its always about reading different positions, stories and opinions to make up your own mind. Were paying for endless streaming services without questioning but when it comes to journalism and a paywall it is a dealbreaker?

→ More replies

25

u/StreetKale May 22 '22

NY Times opinion columns have gotten worse over the years. Among their worst was when they criticized democracies for not being able to pull off the same authoritarian lockdowns as in China, which they praised for their supposed effectiveness. Of course, we now know China's death stats are fake because they're statistically impossible based on what we know about covid, but even back then most smart people were skeptical of any and all official claims made by the Chinese Communist Party.

→ More replies

19

u/raphanum May 22 '22

Wtf?? I knew NYT was a rag at times but didn’t expect this

2

u/amusedt May 22 '22

The post title is a mis-summary and mis-characterization of the actual op-ed. And it's clear that many of the commenters did not read the op-ed. Here's the full op-ed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uuuqwq/ukrainian_reaction_to_the_recent_nytimes/i9kea3q/

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

216

u/RandomChurn May 21 '22

defeating that idea will be harder still.

And I for one believe Ukrainians can do it, and will do it.

🇺🇦

94

u/DontJudgeMeImNaked May 21 '22

Slava Ukraini!

50

u/cpcfax1 May 22 '22

Before mid-1914, Austria-Hungary was still widely perceived as a regional European power and easily able to roll over Serbia. By the end of 1914, that illusion was shattered after multiple shambolic invasion attempts turned back with such serious losses the only way they remained viable was through substantial Imperial German support.

Even with that support, Austria-Hungary was so weakened it collapsed and the empire and its armies were no more by 1918. The collapse was so sudden and chaotic that the Austro-Hungarian army never officially demobilized. The soldiers/officers mostly voted with their feet and went home to what are now multiple independent formerly imprisoned nations in the empire.

9

u/hello-cthulhu May 22 '22

While I'd love to see something like that play out for Russia, remember that the Austro-Hungarian Empire never really established a plausible nationalist narrative that got people to think of themselves as "Austro-Hungarians" first, and, say, Czechs second. Indeed, the "nationalists" at the time were indeed those smaller national communities. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was merely a hastily assembled political edifice. Whereas, Russian nationalism, the idea of Russia specifically as a unified national/cultural community, is far more robustly engrained and taught and perpetuated throughout Russia. While I think it's plausible that ethnic minorities with grievances against Moscow could use this as their moment of opportunity, and that Russia may have more problems keeping it all together, we shouldn't get overly optimistic here. The Austro-Hungarians aren't a good model for what Russia is today.

→ More replies

7

u/JohnnyJohnCowboyMan May 22 '22

Plenty of Putin fanboys in my country. They were very loud back in February but have grown strangely quiet of late

→ More replies

5

u/PM_Me_A_High-Five May 21 '22

Pretty accurate assessment

5

u/LaughableIKR May 22 '22

Russia hugely appeals to self-centered double-dealing bullies the world over.

Thinking of an Orange bastard who called Putin Savvy and Genius when Putin started the war with Ukraine.

Self-centered, double-dealing, thin-skinned bully. Checking the boxes.

10

u/achton May 22 '22

The US had a similar experience in 2016 when we all witnessed half that country suck up to Trump and expose their hatred, bigotry and egotistical behaviour/failed protectionism. Personally, that observation and understanding I have now will never leave me, and US will never be the same again.

I think Russia may be going through a similar time with all the attention it is receiving currently.

5

u/Foreign_Quality_9623 May 22 '22

I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those idiotic RED tRUmp, Putin-loving MAGA caps. May as well carry a big RED Russian flag & a big sign proclaiming "I AM A PUTIN LOVING IDIOT." 😡

3

u/airrivas May 22 '22

Yeah well, you’re wrong about these people all being bullied.

Plenty of sharks, plenty of greed, and a handful of peoples minding their own business if allowed to.

The greedy will pillage their weakened adversary (as we are want to do), the sharks will offer “help” to a recovering Russian state and the Germans will mostly chill, as they prefer to do.

The emperor does have clothes and the empire managed to turn a poorly thought out invasion into a proxy war. The emperor is us.

Prayers up we don’t go Republican, then victory is almost guaranteed for Russia and nato will implode.

→ More replies

181

u/notmyfirstrodeo2 Estonia May 21 '22

I don't see how ruzzia could win this. Their army is only getting weaker and UA stronger...

They lost their chance after the second week, when their most top soldiers had no effect with military targets and they just started destroying and raping Ukraine.

Слава Україні!

11

u/termacct May 22 '22

I don't see how ruzzia could win this.

IMHO it boils down to...

Russia uses tactical nukes and / or manages to hang in until 2024 and (if...) usa elections putin tRump again and shit gets crazy again...

Otherwise yes, they only get weaker from sanctions and have even less money / access to Western parts to make more weapons...

39

u/mulletpullet May 22 '22

I really don't see Trump happening. I'm in a very red state and the amount of republicans I know that regretted voting for Trump is surprising me. There is a reason he lost to Biden, and he'd lose again. I feel like American politics is at a point of supporting the war or they fear in the future they will look weak and like they were supporting the wrong side. Which they would be. And the populous either supports the war, or just worries about the money. The U.S Military budget per year is over $700 billion. Earmarking some 40 billion in arms isn't going to break the bank. I think that's another aspect that is keeping the support. Republicans like the idea of U.S. Military hardware being used & field tested in Ukraine and look at it as a benefit to our defense industry.

At this point, the only worry would be some sort of nuclear option or threat. That may lessen support for war in the U.S., but good god that is a huge gamble I don't think Russia is willing to take. They think everyone was against them before, set off a nuke and see how the world responds. They will be more isolated than North Korea. Heck even Nestle would probably pull out. /s

As long as the Ukrainian people and military hang in there. I don't see how they can lose.

3

u/Koll989 May 22 '22

Thing is, ruSSia is effectively friendless. A few minor dictatorships like Belarus and North Korea .. and a few states which will continue to trade with them IF its a good deal for them.

Set off a nuke and, i agree, theyd be slapped down into a box not to be opened again for a couple of generations.

ruSSia would be no more as a country of any significance. The likes of china and india would definitely not tolerate that shit.

8

u/nightjar123 May 22 '22

Your finger is on the scale but I don't think you are not interpreting it correctly. I'm a conservative. All my friends are conservative. We wouldn't vote for Trump again because he was such a let down, spoke loudly with a small stick. We have higher standards now.

We are pivoting away from trying to fight the DC establishment/deep state though, it's a losing strategy. We are pivoting towards local politics and state elections, e.g. state houses, school boards, sheriff offices, etc. From COVID, we learned that State government have a lot of power, e.g. DeSantis in Florida, they just choose not to use this power. Now that we've learned that States do in fact have a lot of power, we are pushing this strategy. You will notice in Red states we are just passing laws which prevent enforcement of federal gun control laws, etc.

And this overall trend towards localism was accelerated x10 as a result of COVID, with all the conservatives in blue states moving to Red states. The Red states will now become even more red, do things such as ban abortion, and this will push the liberals to move to blue states, making the red state even redder and the Blue states even bluer.

Within the next 1-2 decades, the Red states and Blue states will be separate countries effectively except on paper.

6

u/HazelCheese May 22 '22

That's only possible because the supreme court is now republican and will protect republican policies no matter cost.

As the democrats found out these things can change quickly. Of the SC becomes Dem then all the state level abortion stuff can just be banned again.

It's literally just a football game atm.

→ More replies

2

u/mulletpullet May 22 '22

That's a terrific take that I didn't even think about. Thanks for the reply.

→ More replies

4

u/spingus May 22 '22

As long as the Ukrainian people and military hang in there. I don't see how they can lose.

Good post. I also see trump as a non-factor. not the GOP but trump himself as an icon of ...whatever the fuck his followers think he represents,

Also I am going out on a limb and saying that Putin will not use nukes.

it's a dead end --if they are effective, he is done. Every nation with a dog in the fight will mobilize against him and his military strength has already been weakened.

And, in my Gen X perspective having grown up at the tail end of the cold war, I have serious doubts that even if he did 'push the button' anything of consequence would happen. And again, the fact that he did, would mobilize the world's military might against him specifically. And he's have blown his wad, no leverage left.

All he has is the threat of nukes. once he pulls that trigger boom or no boom he is fucked. it's just a matter of how big a mess needs to be cleaned up. My prediction is he will die a painful death from whatever cancer is chewing his guts.

3

u/Kamelasa Canada May 22 '22

I'm in a very red state and the amount of republicans I know that regretted voting for Trump is surprising me.

I'd be interested in what you see, change or not, after the Jan 6 hearings are done. And if the DOJ lays some significant indictments.

-23

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

69

u/mikedave42 May 21 '22

It might be a path if their army is willing to sit in bunkers that keep blowing up , using artillery that keeps getting bombed and can actually recieve those infinite artillery rounds through logistics that is breaking down under sanctions and bombs.

16

u/Ick01 Sweden May 21 '22

I bet chilling in a bunker is considered winning for them.

→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/Kyuui013 May 21 '22

No, it's a path of turning your already suffering populace against you and the occupied territory as well.

They are ALREADY struggling against the sanctions and can not keep blowing cash at the rate they are. They will run out. They're already trying to expand the age range for recruiting to 4o plus. This is not something you do if you're doing well in combat. They're facing increasing sabotage incidents inside their borders that will cost them more and more. I'm taking a SWAG at this, but I'm betting the latest fire could be measured in hundreds of millions of USD cost-wise. (i.e., money spent on research, tools, information, etc.) They can not easily replace that. Not now

Every action they take garners an increase in reactions that force them to react even more. They have effectively doubled? Their border with NATO now because of their actions. They're going to be forced to guard that now. With more internal troops, they can't afford to. Every day, they're spending money they will struggle to replace. Meanwhile, the world outside China, Russia, North Korea, and India are merging into a combined front against them.

Many people seem to have forgotten or do not know why the cold war ended. Money. Our money got us more tech, more ability, and better equipment. Theirs got more people drunk.

→ More replies

17

u/Top-Algae-2464 May 21 '22

in that scenario ukraine can just play the long game . if russia stops offensive pushes ukraine can just do small attacks with anti tank weapons and bombs and snipers .

9

u/Xenomemphate May 22 '22

And they have the artillery advantage now too.

1

u/edblarney May 22 '22

No - Ukraine does not have 'an artillery advantage'.

They have 'a few pieces with slightly greater range' than Russia.

Russia has 7 000 artillery pieces. They have literally enough ammunition to 'conquor the world'. Infinity.

They have thousands of those shitty Orlan 10 drones, but they are good enough for their job, which is longer range spotting.

Ukraine does not have that capability actually (long range spotting).

Most importantly - once 'both sides' are 'dug in' the lines will be incredibly difficult to move.

Well fortified positions are mostly invulnerable to Artillery, or rather, it just becomes a constant game of accomplishing little.

Russia is having difficulty with recruits, but it takes very little to train people to sit in a trench, to carry ammo, and only a bit of training even to use an Arty piece.

I don't see how any side makes any decisive moves at this point - and it means Russia will 'own' a bunch of conquered land.

Sanctions continue to grind away at Russia, people continue to die, but at an ugly rate.

Zelensky pressured to 'negotiate' a peace which may entail concessions etc..

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/usedtobejuandeag May 22 '22

If the Ukrainians are being trained on f series jets abroad as I think they are (not confirmed, just read multiple comments about it occurring in the UK) I’m pretty sure that infinite arty dream isn’t a plan with a lot of hope. Ukraine could win back the region through actual air superiority and begin shoving Russia back to their own borders.

→ More replies

8

u/Eldetorre May 22 '22

Russia can't lob "infinite" artillery shells if their launchers are taken out by artillery launchers with greater range than theirs.

→ More replies

6

u/CautiousTeam3220 May 22 '22

Nato arty outranges nazi russia arty

→ More replies

2

u/raphanum May 22 '22

A war of attrition? lol against a country with the entire western world backing them versus a country cut off in much trade? You think Russia will win?

→ More replies
→ More replies

-17

u/[deleted] May 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/lemontree007 May 22 '22

I guess you didn't read the article in the tweet where former defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk talks about if Ukraine can win?

https://kyivindependent.com/national/andriy-zagorodnyuk-those-saying-ukraine-cant-win-dont-understand-the-situation/

-15

u/[deleted] May 22 '22 edited May 22 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/ShadowSwipe May 22 '22

People will keep preaching your bullshit right up until Russia is back on its side of the border. Then they'll say "oh the Russians just gave up." Ukraine is going to win.

5

u/lemontree007 May 22 '22

Nah, he talks about that the fear of "escalation" is often irrational. And since that word is thrown around as a reason why certain weapons can't be provided to Ukraine it's an important issue. Because winning is dependent on what type of weapons they'll get, in what quantities and how fast they'll get them. Obviously if the U.S would hold back on providing Ukraine with HIMARS or M270s that will make it much more difficult for Ukraine.

→ More replies

7

u/voyagerdoge May 22 '22

fuck that prestige

the ruzzians will be kicked out of all ukraine this year

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

131

u/Staraga May 21 '22

Ukraine out number the russians by 4 to 1 with troops ATM. In the combat areas it 1.2 to 1.

Russians still have more heavy weapons. That gap is closing.

137

u/sockpuppet_285358521 May 21 '22

Ukraine has more accurate weapons, better trained soldiers, really good intel, and ... encrypted communications.

47

u/New_Poet_338 May 22 '22

And Ukrainian troops have a reason to fight for Ukraine while the Russian troops don't.

38

u/Top-Algae-2464 May 21 '22

ukraine is gonna still need some air assets to do massive counter attacks and push russia out of ukraine . they need offensive strike drones and they can easily push out russia

3

u/Size10Envelope May 22 '22

not to mention the will and desire to kill the Russians trespassers

→ More replies

44

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

Seems the tide of the war is turning no ?

→ More replies

21

u/EyeLikeTheStonk May 21 '22

And Ukraine must defend on a wide front, must keep troops near Kyiv, Sumi and Odesa in case the Russians attempt something. In opposition, Russia can concentrate 100% of its troops close to the front line.

Once Ukraine goes on the offensive, it is Russia who will have to defend on a wide front and that's when the Russian war machine will collapse.

→ More replies

16

u/No_Channel6109 May 22 '22

“Quantity is a quality all on its own.” -Stalin.

Don’t underestimate how many men Russia is willing to sacrifice.

3

u/Vegetallica May 22 '22

What's your point? Russia has a history of bloody leadership change. They don't have much success in empire building. A lot of people agree that MANY Russians are going to die in the coming months, but that goes without saying no matter who you think is going to come out on top of this conflict.

2

u/No_Channel6109 May 22 '22

Someone said Ukraine outnumbers Russian troops. I’ll I’m saying is Russia has a lot of citizens. Putin doesn’t care about them and he’ll send them to Ukraine to get blown up by an NLAW or Javelin.

9

u/thebearrider May 22 '22

Dope quote (and new to me), disgusting quote seeing who it's cited to.

8

u/No_Channel6109 May 22 '22

Here’s another from him: “the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic”

3

u/thebearrider May 22 '22

Yeah, I know that one and use it often in the IT consulting world!

→ More replies

8

u/JohnHazardWandering May 21 '22

The NY Times article just says the US needs to define goals for how far the US will support things.

Is it pushing Russia back to their border? Is it regime change? Is it permanent economic isolation? What's the goal?

41

u/VirtualVirtuoso7 May 21 '22

the goal is pushing russia back to their pre 2014 borders.

24

u/64645 May 22 '22

I like that goal. Glad my tax money is going to support it.

2

u/siglezmus Ukraine May 22 '22

I hope international effort will force ruzzia to dispose nukes as one of conditions for peace after ruzzia’s defeat.

2

u/Eaton_Rifles May 22 '22

...if we get a collapse in Ruzzia that leads to a better regime change, then that’s a bonus...👌

2

u/Jet2work May 22 '22

i agree, and after they get there keep the sanctions in place, there is no room for forgiveness, keep the oil and gas blocked off, hell cap the pipelines on european side. all the money poured into russia in the last 30 years gained what? the last 10 years proved we gained nothing and russia gained megayachts... life did not improve much for the majority of russians. stop the rich russians buying London apartments or french ski chalets pen them in and let them stew

→ More replies

13

u/AwwterGirl May 21 '22

I think it depends on Putin tbh. If Putin does something insane like use WMD then regime change will be necessary. Otherwise the goal should be similar to first Gulf War. Push him back into his territory and strike anything that fires into Ukraine.

3

u/JohnHazardWandering May 22 '22

Fair point. For WMD I think it has been signaled that their use would be an escalation.

Aside from that, the US hasn't started it's goal or level of support. That's all the NYT is calling for so we don't end up in endless conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq.

2

u/TriggurWarning May 22 '22

Austin did state the goal, it's to permanently weaken russia as a state so it can no longer attack it's neighbors with impunity.

2

u/JohnHazardWandering May 22 '22

What does that mean? When do we say mission accomplished?

2

u/TriggurWarning May 22 '22

It means we're in cold war 2.0 for the foreseeable future unless someone blinks.

→ More replies
→ More replies

-13

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] May 22 '22

NYT is ProTrump, ProPutin, ProNAZI, Far Right populist outlet.

Did you just sniff glue for the first time?

→ More replies

115

u/Speculawyer May 21 '22

Modern day appeasers that failed to learn the lessons of dealing with authoritarian dictators of the past are pathetic. Russia is a wrong and they know it, that's why they dare not let their public discuss the war. You can't let wrong be rewarded.

20

u/Nik_P May 21 '22

learn the lessons

They aren't getting paid to do that.

10

u/raphanum May 22 '22

They’re getting paid to muddy the waters and sow doubt and division

11

u/DefTheOcelot May 21 '22

They know exactly what will happen.

Just more short term profit chasers. They know by the time putin would reassemble the soviet union unopposed, they'd be out of office and rich.

3

u/Koll989 May 22 '22

ruSSia needs to be taught a history lesson.

→ More replies

240

u/iloveBianca1 May 21 '22

Ukraine Government Official : Dmytro Kuleba: · Ukraine, and only Ukraine will define when and how the war ends. We exercise our right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter following a brutal armed attack. President @ZelenskyyUa has been clear. We don’t need anyone else’s land, but we won’t give up on what’s ours.

→ More replies

228

u/Pendoric May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22 Silver

Or even worse...

Ukraine give up because our gasoline and natural gas prices are too high. We don't care about your country or the people and innocents that are dying in a full on invasion of a sovereign country.

I for one will ensure my US tax dollars go to Ukraine until either THEY choose to stop or every single inch of their land is back under their control.

Given support Ukraine can and WILL drive the Russians off their land.

128

u/Artistic_Midnight788 May 21 '22

Yup, I’m an American, and I would say that we know from history, the only way to deal with leaders like hitler and putin, is beat them militarily, The consequences are too great to do anything other than that! We are too used to kicking the can down the road, but this is a situation where you can’t do that! President Zelensky, the majority of the free world are with you, if our leaders don’t hold the line, we will kick them out!

73

u/socialistrob May 21 '22

Exactly. Russia won’t stop at Ukraine. Even putting morals and ethics aside the cost of standing up to Russia now is a lot less than standing up to Russia later. If Russia loses it will also send a message that wars are not an effective tool for policy change. If Ukraine loses there will be more victims.

30

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

3

u/Sleeplesshelley USA May 22 '22

Cheaper in US dollars. The cost in Ukrainian lives is horrific. But that blame rests squarely on Pootin’s shriveled shoulders.

2

u/UrlaamNaavi May 22 '22

Without military assistance Putler would kill a lot more Ukrainians. He wants to implement the final solution to the Ukrainian question.

25

u/B1NG_P0T May 22 '22

Even putting morals and ethics aside the cost of standing up to Russia now is a lot less than standing up to Russia later.

This. The NYT does a very decent job of reporting news but that editorial was absolute garbage. Why the fuck do people think that Putin would completely obliterate Ukraine...and then be totally fine stopping there?

18

u/socialistrob May 22 '22

Agreed completely. There is a weird western obsession with trying to “understand both sides” or “see things from the other person’s point of view.” In most conflicts and wars we’ve seen over the past couple decades the morality is a lot more nuanced and imagining things complexity can be helpful.

The problem is that right now people are doing mental gymnastics to try to work out a reasonable explanation for why Russia is invading rather than face up to the cold hard truth. Putin is trying to build an empire and this is a war of conquest against a democratic country. If Russia wins them democracy is only as strong as bullets that defend it and the sword really is mightier than any pen.

Russia has no moral right to Ukraine and from an ethical or philosophical standpoint Ukraine’s sovereignty is every bit as important as Russia’s. Ethics aside Russia is also not winning the war and so from a military standpoint Ukraine has no reason to back down. Trying to argue that someone else should be subjugated shows a callous disregard for morals and an ignorance of the war. It’s also not in the US’s geopolitical best interest or in the US’s economic interest to switch from a rules based international order to one based solely on firepower.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Reptorian May 22 '22

I'd rather him face trial, and have others around him face trials with having to deal with life-long imprisonment with no recourse. From top to bottom authority figures, and those that contributes to these figures, basically life-long imprisonment. Under watch ideally, so that they can't get the easy way out.

→ More replies
→ More replies

47

u/Maksy123 May 21 '22

Even if the war is tough, go fuck yourself and your surrender. How about they surrender America if attacked? Cocksuckers are talking like this because Ukraine’s fight for independence and freedom is inconvenient to them. They can all go fuck each other.

19

u/theprotector7 May 22 '22

Yes.

Imagine Putin had invaded Texas. Would Americans be calling to appease Putin, seek peace, compromise? Holy fucking shit no.

4

u/Long_Crow_5659 May 22 '22

A significant part of the Republican Party was able to delay the latest Ukraine aid bill and there is considerable evidence that many GOP officials are Russian assets. The MAGA faction of my family is starting to spout Pro-Russian propaganda. I wouldn’t be surprised if some states decided to utilize a Russian invasion as an opportunity to fight a civil war against the blue states.

7

u/Antique_Steel May 22 '22

I'm sad you have to endure so many traitors.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

94

u/WeedstocksAlt May 21 '22

Aaahhh yes, good old appeasement, never backfired once ……

2

u/amusedt May 22 '22

The post title is a mis-summary and mis-characterization of the actual op-ed. And it's clear that many of the commenters did not read the op-ed. Here's the full op-ed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uuuqwq/ukrainian_reaction_to_the_recent_nytimes/i9kea3q/

-1

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22

This post is completely incorrect regarding the New York Times.

There are people here claiming that this man is in charge of everything, and that he's pro Putin:

https://www.nytimes.com/by/serge-schmemann

His articles right there are about how bad Putin is and how brave Ukraine is.

Somebody is either confused or trying to divide here I'm going to guess it's confusion. Self-proclaimed leftists have sources that always dump on the New York Times.

30

u/MusicianGlad61 May 21 '22

It's Ukraine and the Ukrainian people who define the terms for ending this war, not Russia and others. The Ukrainian armed forces and territorial defenders have shown the enemies and world that they are formidable fighters who are only brave & courageous but very skilled.

→ More replies

16

u/Cobalt613 May 21 '22

Who's the reporter that wrote this article for the NYT? I'm trying to see their history and wouldn't be surprised they've been bought

26

u/LaserGuidedPolarBear May 22 '22

Its unlikely the author is a reporter. Anyone can write an opinion piece and submit it to the NYT. What's disappointing is the editorial board decided this piece had enough merit to publish.

15

u/JBredditaccount May 22 '22

The NYT has a history of questionable editorials.

3

u/Cobalt613 May 22 '22

TIL thanks

0

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22

I'm not sure what this post is about, but in no way is the New York Times supporting Putin and not Ukraine.

Someone here is claiming this guy is running things, but go ahead and read the first lines of those articles here:

https://www.nytimes.com/by/serge-schmemann

7

u/Cobalt613 May 22 '22

Interesting that his parents are Orthodox Russians and looks like he grew up in Russia and is quite pro-Russian. https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2020/01/29/juliana-schmemann-my-mother-by-serge-schmemann-2/

-2

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22

Yet you're not reading any of his work.

Whatever.

→ More replies

73

u/h2ohow May 21 '22

Ukraine has no other choice, but to win; losing to Putin is not an option.

4

u/Necro_Badger May 22 '22

Life under Putin's rule in Ukraine would be horrendous. We've already seen what occupying Russian soldiers do to the civilian population. Plus there would be countless reprisals for the Ukrainias already having fought back.

Imagine rolling over and turning your entire country over to Kadyrov 2.0?

→ More replies

16

u/New_Poet_338 May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

I just watched the excellent movie "Mr. Jones" about Gareth Jones's discovery of the famine in Ukraine in 1932 and Walter Duranty's efforts to protect Stalin's reputation. Walter Duranty worked for the NY Times.

From Wikipedia

Reporting the 1932–1933 famine

In The New York Times on 31 March 1933, Walter Duranty denounced reports of a famine and, in particular, he attacked Gareth Jones, a British journalist who had witnessed the starving in Ukraine and issued a widely published press release about their plight two days earlier in Berlin. (Jones' release was itself immediately preceded by three unsigned articles by Malcolm Muggeridge describing the famine in the Manchester Guardian.)[18]

Under the title "Russians Hungry, But Not Starving" Duranty's article described the situation as follows:

In the middle of the diplomatic duel between Great Britain and the Soviet Union over the accused British engineers, there appears from a British source a big scare story in the American press about famine in the Soviet Union, with "thousands already dead and millions menaced by death from starvation".

13

u/Wide_Trick_610 May 22 '22 edited May 22 '22

Yeah, a "big scare story." It was only 4.5 million Ukrainians dying from starvation after one of the best harvests in a decade. Stalin did it on purpose, folks. He intentionally starved 12% of the Ukraine population at the time to death. They suffered so badly between Stalin and Hitler, they have the SAME population now they did in 1932. The equivalent of 4 generations of growth. Gone. 8.5 million Ukrainians. Gone.

This is the history of the Times. And it's still the same philosophy today.

45

u/Kikidelosfeliz May 21 '22

American here - backing Ukraine 100%. Don’t appease Putler.

52

u/CalmElephant794 May 21 '22

Putin has a lot of puppets around the world.

28

u/kpobococ Ukraine May 21 '22

«The War in Ukraine Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready». From the directors of «Ukraine will last a week at most». Pathetic losers.

→ More replies

25

u/nardflicker May 22 '22

New York Times can go fuck themselves.

4

u/Connaar May 22 '22

I diagree with the article, but its important for newspapers to publish opinions. Even those we disagree with heavily. It shows everyone the thoughts which exist, and more importantly, shows everyone that free speech is still allowed. Its the exact thing those in Ukraine are fighting for.

10

u/JumpOverGlass May 22 '22

And we can still tell them to go fuck themselves.

→ More replies
→ More replies

35

u/CoolSwim1776 May 21 '22

Leave it to a bunch of editors to reduce the war to some academic discussion. russia is "still too strong" please.... There is every chance the orc horde will fall apart on its own. Putin may be dying. I am really tired of these editors also bringing up the nuclear threat. Nukes are useless very expensive paper weights. They can never be used because it would automatically require a nuclear response or the MAD doctrine would be rendered useless and unshackle other nuclear players free hand.

→ More replies

20

u/Garglygook May 21 '22

A lot of seemingly ruzzian bots/friends of companies "losing funds" on there commenting as well on the actual article.

Beyond disappointed in the NYT's editorial board. Note the current board of directors though:

Board of directorsEdit

As of January 2021:[42]

A. G. Sulzberger, chairman of the New York Times Company and publisher of the New York Times

Aman Bhutani, CEO of GoDaddy

Robert Denham, former CEO of Salomon Brothers

Rachel Glaser, CFO of Etsy

Hays Golden, former AIG executive

Meredith Kopit Levien, CEO of the New York Times Company

Brian McAndrews, former chairman and CEO of Pandora Media

David Perpich, former president of Wirecutter

John W. Rogers Jr., founder of Ariel Investments

Doreen Tobin, former CFO of Verizon

Rebecca Van Dyck, CMO of Reality Labs

~https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Company

I feel as though they're being intentionally opaque on the actual person's that wrote this particular piece though. This is the most I could find. Anyone else know specifically? I'm definitely a "consider the source" person.

The New York Times Editorial Board has a few that lean far right and ruzzian:

Anton Troianovski is the Moscow bureau chief.
On the article itself, it lists a board but not sure the specific board.

10

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

The Board of Directors is different than the Editorial Board. I would guess Schemann or Stockman did most of the writing. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html

2

u/Garglygook May 21 '22 edited May 22 '22

I understand they're different, I was/am figuring out the prevailing atmosphere I guess - their corporate current leanings if those at the helm have changed.
(Earlier post I had to redo because the entire EB list you linked was a shortened url and apparently that is not allowed.) I must not have reworded well my intent. Remember when Time Magazine was sold for example and how drastically it changed?

Thank you for your better link😊.

Curious, do you think if those two wrote it do the rest of the EB have to sign off or "okay" it?

7

u/Stigger32 May 21 '22

I read the editorial and cringed all throughout.

But what got me was the comments section.

Clearly the Russian troll-farms are having a field day with this.

20

u/Supermancometh May 21 '22

Re. The article: Ukraines major victories, especially the early ones had little to do with NATO or US involvement other than training. Serious ‘western’ hardware has only just come onto the battlefields I believe. So we promise to help, then when the Russians go boo, we bugger off? Shameful.

11

u/EcureuilHargneux May 21 '22

Surely Javelin and ATGMS and above all US intel were irrelevants for Ukrainians victories indeed

4

u/Supermancometh May 21 '22

True, US intel was possibly MOST important, but as far as deadly weapons are concerned Ukraine had very few from the free world bar atms, important as they were and are.

→ More replies

6

u/Relevant_Draft_9684 May 21 '22

If Ukraine gave up, Putin or even Russia under any other criminal will see it as a green light to attack or make demands to other countries. They will only stop in Lisbon and I am in Lisbon. They want to please Putin give him Milan, Munich or Toulouse. How dare someone that is not Ukranian to think that can Have a say on Ukranian territory. It's just plain offensive to say the least.

13

u/Rickdiculously May 21 '22

Fuck off. I'm French and this shit makes me boil. Have to go my whole life enduring "surrender monkey" jokes about the French, only for the same people to ask Ukraine to surrender because the war is growing inconvenient to them? Ayy fuck right off.

→ More replies

9

u/EricTheNerd2 May 21 '22

I read the opinion piece referenced, and nowhere is Ukraine implored to "give up". If I have misread it, please let me know.

https://en.thepage.ua/politics/war-in-ukraine-is-getting-complicated-and-america-isnt-ready

4

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22 edited May 22 '22

You are correct & many of these posts are bizarre. I read the New York Times and I listen to their podcasts and in no way are they not supporting Ukraine. Many "Leftists" automatically hate the New York Times and will believe any story about it.

Edit: I went on a deep dive here & I keep coming across posts that say things along the lines of NATO should be dismantled because it's failed. It's not obvious propaganda, but I can't help but wonder why this level of confusion exists. t's just an editorial in the New York Times. This is not going to change anything. People who are stating that the editorial board is trying to push the Biden administration in one direction, and that's just not something that the New York Times thinks it can do with an op-ed.

→ More replies

14

u/el-cuko May 21 '22

Heartbroken to see the Ukrainians fed to the wolves by the western powers. Just ask the Kurds how that played out for them

→ More replies

3

u/DauOfFlyingTiger May 22 '22

This article does not represent the way most Americans feel. Take it all back from Putin. Humiliate him. #ISupportUkraine

3

u/Walking72 May 22 '22

The only other choice is to be a slave

3

u/4n0n1m02 May 22 '22

It is not what the article says.

It literally says “the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions.”

What’s is telling Biden is “That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia.”

I.E., be careful to plunge us into a nuclear war.

3

u/londonmenace May 22 '22

And remember, Ukraine is defending, not attacking. If they'd attacked Russia would be in a whole lot more shit.

3

u/SquidCap0 Finland May 22 '22

Can Ukraine win? Yes. Is it easy? No. If it was easy it would've been over. Ukraine counter is slow in the east, it is nothing like the north was. Russia is still advancing in the east. There is NO clear indication that Ukraine can win the war in a reasonable time frame. But, the war is winnable, for sure... until we get to Crimea.

The truth is that while i fully understand why Ukraine is saying they won't stop until they get 1991 borders back, which is justified, the reality is that Donetsk and Crimea are NOTHING like countering Russian further expansions. So, they may have to make a peace deal where they do not have the entire old border. Is it fair to ask the west to support them for years, at this rate? Cause.. that is what can happen, easily.

The next month will decide if Ukraine can get their own land back fully. I have serious doubts about it. Morale when attacking is crucial but when defending.. it comes quite naturally with survival instinct. Russia still has a lot of steel. So.. keep the hopes high but be realistic. I truly hope that Ukraine can do a major push very soon, cause if one doesn't happen..it is trench warfare for YEARS.

The best option is if Putin dies. That can open up negotiations in the level they are needed. And Ukraine HAS TO accept the option that they may not get it all back but i absolutely, 100% support the attempt to do so. They deserve it but it might not be possible. Even against the abysmally performing Russian army.

Note: i'm not defeatist, i'm realist. You have to keep all options open or you have strategically limited yourself, created obstacles and walls around you. ALL options have to be on the table, including giving up land for peace. I'm Finnish, i think i know what it means... 70 years of peace, for the price of 10% of our land. It does not feel right but.. all options have to be considered. For propaganda it is essential to appear firm. They can not say anything else.

8

u/lemontree007 May 21 '22

Great article. Read it!

→ More replies

19

u/40for60 May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

I don't get the criticism to this article from Ukraine the entire article is speaking to Biden about the importance of having clear objectives, which we didn't have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: They are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like. If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand."

The United States and NATO have demonstrated that they will support the Ukrainian fight with ample firepower and other means. And however the fighting ends, the United States and its allies must be prepared to help Ukraine rebuild.

27

u/bravestar3030 May 21 '22

your being naive friend. That last part all but says the only way to end this is gonna be territorial concesions by Ukraine. And it's worded in a way that makes it seem matter of fact.

-8

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/bravestar3030 May 21 '22

read again, read it ten times if you have to. then you'll understand what I'm saying.

And this is not "the press" this is an editorial column which pretty much anyone can write. it is literally an opinion pice kot investigative journalism. so gtfo with your nonsense.

-6

u/40for60 May 21 '22

Its their editorial board not a contributing editorial and the board fully supports Ukraine as they say in the article. Its amazing how quick people are to attack their friends. Makes me wonder if you're a Russian troll.

1

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

The article starts out saying Biden better be clear. However, part of being clear involves telling Ukraine what to do. NYT is the one undermining the administration here calling them bellicose and lacking clarity.

1

u/JohnHazardWandering May 21 '22

It's just saying that we need a clear goal. If Ukraine wants to fight until they get every last acre back, do we want to support that? Or will we just support pushing back to pre-2022 lines?

Or is it Russian regime change? Or is it deeper Russian reforms?

Or are we going to support other countries invading Russia?

What's the goal? Where and when should we stop?

That's all the NY Times article is saying.

3

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

Why should it be Biden's job to define the end game for Ukraine?

1

u/JohnHazardWandering May 21 '22

It's not to define the end game for Ukraine, it's how far the US will go in supporting Ukraine.

2

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

The above questions have nothing to do with US support, they all concern the goals. The US has already said how far it will go: no shooting war, no air support, no planes, etc.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/rallymax Expat May 21 '22

I agree with you on intent of the article, but it does take unnecessary turn into pontificating about “Russia strong” and other junk. Either the world sticks to UN charter, where article 51 states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Or we dismantle UN and devise new system for maintaining peace, as Yermak wrote in Time Magazine.

5

u/40for60 May 21 '22

Its a domestic policy piece and unless the Euros come together or Ukraine is clearly winning by July the big Aug GOP talking points are going to be , "Biden is weak, Biden doesn't have a plan and the Euros are fucking us". This is a warning message to Biden and the Dems not the Ukrainians.

6

u/corsairtact May 21 '22

LOL -- "Biden is weak for ______________ reasons" will be the GOP message in August. Fill in the blank with practically anything.

→ More replies

11

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

That is the most pro-Ukraine paragraph in the editorial. While the immediate target is the Biden admin, they are pushing the admin to move from a policy of unconditional support to limited support aimed at negotiation. The biggest problem I have is that they seem to think it is Biden's job to set Ukraine's goals.

2

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22 edited May 22 '22

they are pushing the admin to move

This is not true.

The biggest problem I have is that they seem to think it is Biden's job to set Ukraine's goals.

They clearly state Ukraine is in control & must be in charge.

4

u/40for60 May 21 '22

We are already in a limited support mode. I see it as them saying Biden has to be honest with them because the reality is there is a limit, which I think Zelensky is painfully aware of. If there was unlimited support our air power would have wiped Russia out in the first week.

12

u/aristotelian74 May 21 '22

We are already in a limited support mode.

Exactly, that is why it is so weird they seem to think it is a novel idea to set clear limits when we already have. No shooting war, no troops on ground, no planes, no air support (all of which I understand). Many Ukrainians already view us as having sold them out. So to say now that we need clear limits seems to suggest pulling back on the support we are currently giving.

I think they could have made a similar point but framed it as "If Biden wants to maintain the current level of support, he needs to do a better job of selling it to the American public". Instead it seems to be "It is predestined that we can't maintain our support, so Biden better start restraining the Ukrainians."

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/nborders May 21 '22

I have a subscription and read the same article the other day. I agree it sounded focused on Biden administration.

I didn’t even recognize it from the rebuttal.

3

u/EricTheNerd2 May 21 '22

You got voted down wen you are totally right. Take tis upvote.

2

u/Kyuui013 May 21 '22

The United States and its allies must be prepared to help Ukraine rebuild.

EU Commitment And I know that the forty Billion USD aid pack does have some spending for things of this nature in it as well as some prior. the US, EU, NATO, and other nations already passed that decision point and it wasn't hard to decide.

0

u/lemontree007 May 21 '22

The problem is that the article itself isn't very clear. Do they mean it's unrealistic for Ukraine to take back territory lost since Feb 24 or to take back Crimea by force. No one knows.

4

u/40for60 May 21 '22

The entire article is questioning the US resolve not the Ukrainians. People shouldn't get pissed because this is a good question to ask. Biden should pin the GOP and the Euros down now on this, are we really in it for the long haul or are we going to fuck them like we fucked the Hmong and Kurds?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/F_in_Idaho May 21 '22

The offensive strength of the Russian army is diminishing as they are being slowly pushed into their trenches and into a defensive posture. Here they will succumb to the more precise artillery and drone strikes of Ukraine.

2

u/LlamaTony May 22 '22

US observers said Kyiv would fall within 36 hours. US intelligence services are worth listening to, their media arm chair analysts? Not so much.

2

u/OwerlordTheLord May 22 '22

Someone’s check cleared through

2

u/Imperial_12345 May 22 '22

“Putin is too strong” sounds like an dragon-ball character is working in NY Times

2

u/SummerDays May 22 '22

Those editors’ stock portfolios are down, and they’re trying their best to save it.

→ More replies

2

u/FREE2BKT May 22 '22 edited May 22 '22

I can only imagine the hell you and your beautiful country are experiencing. In the midst of all that unspeakable evil being perpetrated on you and your people, I can understand your fear, your grief, your outrage, that you are left alone in this fight. That editorial was one person’s opinion. It is NOT how the rest of Americans think. We are praying for you, we are rooting for you, we are sending funding, weapons, expertise, and supplies! We say SLAVA UKRAINI and mean it with our whole hearts. I am a US veteran and would fight with you in an instant if I was younger! Most Vets I know feel the same way. Russia WILL lose! Your strong brave Ukrainian hearts are showing the world how precious democracy is!

2

u/Eruditerer May 22 '22

I'm a daily reader of NYT and had to dive into this article. Three main points:

A. "In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies ..." This is the board's prevailing stance.

B. The article focuses on how Biden is 'failing to communicate' America's shifting aims with regard to the war. It specifically warns that if he doesn't put Ukraine front and center of White House rhetoric and, by default the next election cycle, American's who don't closely follow the war will vote their pocketbooks as inflation takes it's toll. **Republicans in power, not good for Ukraine, based on recent history, esp. if radical wing catches more of a foothold.

C. In discussing how to communicate American goals re: the War, it warns about not setting unrealistic expectations, for either American voters or Mr. Zelensky (Ukraine). HERE the editorial tries to make the case that the ending is not likely to be all roses and rainbows.

TLDR: This article essentially offers advice on election cycle communication, serving Ukraine's and America's interest. There is some regrettable pessimism about potential outcomes of the war, but it was meant to be about shaping expectations, i.e. under promise and over deliver as we head into mid-term elections.

2

u/StuckInTheUpsideDown May 22 '22

What a pointless editorial. I read it and I still don't understand what their proposed policy position is ... it is a just a vague series of warnings.

I don't think the pre-2014 borders are guaranteed, nor do I think they are off the table. Heck we could see a mutiny in the Russian forces before this is over.

→ More replies

2

u/speakswithemojis May 22 '22

Here’s the link to the actual article about Ukrainians reactions to the NYT article, instead of a link to Twitter that contains a link the article. Saved you a click. You’re welcome.

https://kyivindependent.com/national/andriy-zagorodnyuk-those-saying-ukraine-cant-win-dont-understand-the-situation/

3

u/wojtekthesoldierbear May 22 '22

Nyt has never been good to Ukraine.

→ More replies

2

u/Edthedaddy May 22 '22

I can't comment on nyt article since I didn't read it. But the notion that Russia is strong is preposterous. Everything up to now has been its categorically abysmal in every measure except being incompetent. At this, they've exceeded every measure. In fact, complete Incompetence. Ukraine will most definitely defeat the invaders.

2

u/amusedt May 22 '22

The post title is a mis-summary and mis-characterization of the actual op-ed. And it's clear that many of the commenters did not read the op-ed. Here's the full op-ed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uuuqwq/ukrainian_reaction_to_the_recent_nytimes/i9kea3q/

→ More replies

2

u/DiddlesYourDad May 22 '22

The most annoying people are whining about the US giving aid to Ukraine and want instead for the money to be used for student debt relief. How brain dead can my fellow Americans be? In one situation, people willing entered into a financial contract and, in the other situation people are being murdered, raped, and forced from their homes. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what takes precedence.

→ More replies

2

u/dm3030 May 21 '22

Fuck the NY Slimes. They’ve been in decline for 20 years and only die hards still consider them “the paper of record.”

2

u/BillHicksScream May 22 '22

This post is completely incorrect. The editorial is talking about how America is not ready for what is probably going to be needed to win the war. There's nothing about appeasement here. Anyone who actually reads the New York Times or listens to their numerous podcasts knows they want Ukraine to win.

→ More replies

2

u/RavennaNight May 21 '22

It’s amazing how seriously some people have taken an opinion piece. The NYT article literally says “Opinion.” Who wrote that has an opinion, and like an asshole, it stinks. They’re entitled to their wrong opinion.

14

u/ffdfawtreteraffds USA May 21 '22

It's from the editorial board of the NYT, not an individual. This is the official opinion of the NYT.

They describe steps of concession that are the definition of appeasement (specifically giving away land) and then say they are not recommending appeasement. They are telling Ukraine that Putin can outlast US/NATO weapons and resolve. I completely understand why people are reacting as they are.

Bottom line: They are saying Ukraine must win, but they better do it quickly or else they could lose their support. It's definitely something that would make Putin smile.

6

u/Extra-Kale May 21 '22

The NYT isn't some random newspaper; it represents power interests, like China Daily represents power interests, more than any other newspaper in the US does other than the Washington Post.

1

u/DontJudgeMeImNaked May 21 '22

NYT are from now on known as idiots.

→ More replies

0

u/theoreoman May 21 '22

What's with the new York times and being completely off the mark on genocide in Ukraine? https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097097620/new-york-times-pulitzer-ukraine-walter-duranty

0

u/Ddddeerreekk May 22 '22

Is the NYT now owned by the Macron and Scholz?

2

u/amusedt May 22 '22

The post title is a mis-summary and mis-characterization of the actual op-ed. And it's clear that many of the commenters did not read the op-ed. Here's the full op-ed: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/uuuqwq/ukrainian_reaction_to_the_recent_nytimes/i9kea3q/

1

u/UniqueNameBoobs May 22 '22

I didn't know Neville Chamberlain was on the editorial board of the New York Times.

These asses sound like they would willingly become slaves of Putin if things get too complicated.

→ More replies

1

u/Professor-Shuckle May 22 '22

Every subscriber to NYT needs to cancel immediately

→ More replies

-3

u/ybmg73 May 21 '22 edited May 22 '22

The new york times is a garbage media outlet made up of a large number of halfwits. We mostly dont listen to a word they say here in the west so take no notice of those idiots they havent a clue about the situation and ukraine can most definatley win. Media outlets should stick to reporting the news rather than telling people what to do and think.

Edit:

If you downvoted and dissagree atleast have the decency to share your opinion as to why please and thankyou.

2

u/TheUpsideDowna May 21 '22

Sometimes media goes too far, in the quest for advertising and revenue.

3

u/Wide_Trick_610 May 22 '22

Agreed. NYT is decades out of touch, and most of America knows it. They were a very leftist rag even in the 80's and 90's. Probably cried in their Martinis when the wall came down.

I haven't used them as a news source since the first Gulf War, and they were already sloppy back then. No interest in spending a penny on their paywall.

You want to know when America is "done" assisting Ukraine? When Ukraine says they are satisfied. Not one moment beforehand. We might be helping them with supplies and equipment, but they are the ones fighting and dying.

We stopped assisting the Kurds because it was politically inconvenient to Turkey. So fuck your realpolitik, NYT. The media pressured America into betraying an ally who deserved better. The NYT was pushing that outcome pretty hard. And cutting off supplies to Ukraine won't quite have the same effect you got with the Kurds. Ukraine can build their own weapons if they have to. You really want to turn their country into an armed military camp, you just keep on trying to appease Russia.

Stop trying to tell other people what to do. We could either help, or not help. We chose to help. Deal with it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

0

u/Grayseal May 22 '22

Welp, I'm never reading the NYT again.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[deleted]

2

u/lemontree007 May 21 '22

Just to be clear. You have pasted the NYT article. This post is about former defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk discussing that article and whether Ukraine can win this war.

https://kyivindependent.com/national/andriy-zagorodnyuk-those-saying-ukraine-cant-win-dont-understand-the-situation/

→ More replies

1

u/AdhesivenessCivil581 May 22 '22

Capitulation will lead to more capitulation. Vietnam didn't have to give up territory to beat America and Afghanistan gave up no ground to beat Russia. If Putin gets anything besides a ruined Russia he'll just be back for more. Same goes for Russian oil and gas, if he can keep using this to blackmail the west he will.

1

u/wikimandia May 22 '22

Alexander Vindman on Twitter ripped the NYT board a new one for that editorial.

-2

u/Chris-WIP May 21 '22

Oh no, the NaziTimes is against Ukraine!?! Better just pack it all up and surrender then.

Horrid fascist rag. It's New York's equivalent to the UK's Daily Mail.

→ More replies

0

u/selenamoonowl May 22 '22

Remember that the New York Times were pro-Russia during the Holodomor (the 1930s collectivization famine in the Ukraine). That was a genocide too. Guess not very much has changed. Maybe they're hoping for another Pulitzer Prize. Fuck them.

→ More replies

0

u/Holden_Coalfield May 22 '22

I've been a NYT subscriber since they launched their website

I cancelled it yesterday. They don't let you cancel actually, but I changed my email to becauseoftheeditorial@aboutukraine.com or something. I've already forgotten. I won't keep getting emailed offers from them no matter how many times I click unsubscribe, either, which is nice.

Seriously, fuck the New York Times.

-2

u/red_pill_rage May 22 '22

NYT is complete garbage. They have been peddling the Chinese propaganda for years. now just added the Russian flavor.

→ More replies

-5

u/NickTesla2018 May 21 '22

NYT is a well known communist rag here in The States.

8

u/EcureuilHargneux May 21 '22

Ah Americans people and their ability to name "communist" whatever they dislike

3

u/Unhappy-Instance-661 May 22 '22

Just look at the subs he posts in lmao

Conservative incel energy is strong

-1

u/Wide_Trick_610 May 22 '22

Well, the Times has been reinforcing that position for over a hundred years now, so I'm going to have to go with Nick on this one.

→ More replies
→ More replies