No matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it escalatory.
Why do you (and other pro Russians) view an alliance that effectively was created to combat Russian aggression view its expansion as aggression against Russia.
I'll quote someone to tell you why.
>>> Of course Russia and Russian presidents hate NATO, it stops them conducting imperialistic wars against the countries that they wish to subjugate.
>>> No one should care what Russia thinks, it's clear not allowing countries like Georgia and Ukraine into NATO just causes Russia to invade them anyway
> Oh I dunno, appeal on the United Nations security council (just as they futitely tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq), in public speeches that US media refuses to broadcast (unless they can take a tiny clip out of context).
The UN uploads all of there clips to YouTube yet your claim is unsourced.
> Suppose Russia wanted to do everything you and US propaganda claims to Ukraine (up to and including apparently, genociding all Ukrainians, restoring the Soviet Union or whatever is asserted and critically accepted, just like “weapons of mass destruction” and “they hate us for our freedoms”)
This isn't a claim by me but rather by the Russian TV I'll link the video.
> Then why did they not invade in 2015? Why wait 8 years? The only answer I got here is “well Russians are strange”.
> If we didn’t expand NATO and train Ukrainian paramilitaries to kill Russians
You keep using these words like it's some sort of gotcha.
The Ukrainians are being trained to defend their home from an imperialistic invasion against from a country that talks about how many millions of them they will have to kill to subjugate them.
Talks about how they aren't a real country with a real culture and really just Russian lands that have been unjustly taken from them.
> then the worst that would happen is Ukraine would implement the Minsk II agreements, and its fate would have been even better than Georgia after 2008
Why would Ukraine implement Minks II when Russia violated Minsk I and the Budapest Memorandum?.
Did Russia pinky promise that this one time specifically they will actually follow the treaties they sign?
Or was it another step out of Russias playbook to try and freeze the war in a way that was advantageous to them?.
> Also, if Russia did nothing, rather than arming rebels, they would probably have been far better off.
They did a lot more than arming rebels as Igor Strelkov says.
> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.
> According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."
> I criticize both Russia and USA both as imperialists. You criticize Russia BUT NOT USA. That’s the difference.
90% of your content is devoted to criticising America and down playing Russias involvement I the war.
Hell you won't even admit the Russian army was involved in Donbas's in 2014, then the person who was the _leader of the breakaway region_ tells you they where.
> No matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it escalatory.
That’s not up to the aggressor to determine. “Lighten up baby, you shouldn’t be afraid of me” is not how it works. Especially after NATO countries have engaged in so much belligerence in just the last 25 years (Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)
Also, how about just keeping your word? USA doesn’t have a great record of keeping its word since its founding, eg to Native American nations. Same escalations from both sides. Same broken promises.
The whole POINT of successful dialogue and diplomacy is to listen to the repeatedly expressed, pervasively held, major concerns of others. It works also in couples counseling. “No matter how many times you say I scare you, doesn’t make my actions scary or hurtful” is NOT a helpful attitude IF you want to actually make things better for both parties, and in the case of leaders of huge countries, it is their duty to do diplomacy on behalf of citizens of both countries.
In what world is a country saying “you have different style of government, different values, etc. so the concerns you express and want to negotite are totally irrelevant to us, our answer is no” — considered a good diplomatic actor? Obviously they don’t WANT to solve it diplomatically.
As for 90% of my content — when the rest of the people in a forum are already spending 100% of their time bashing women, for instance, or men, or whatever, then the major thing I need to add is THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. That’s normal.
But also, to a white supremacist who blames the other races for so much, saying ANYTHING that is evenhanded sounds to them like “you must love those guys, why do you hate whites so much”. Similarly lefties and progressives often heard “why do you hate America / capitalism” when they merely expressed a bit of criticism. Or people who said anything evenhanded about Palestinians and Israelis can be excoriated by rabid Zionists or Anti-Zionists. So yes. You are the holdong extreme position that one side is 100% wrong. And anything evenhanded sounds like “we have here a Ru**n lover!”
> That’s not up to the aggressor to determine. “Lighten up baby, you shouldn’t be afraid of me” is not how it works. Especially after NATO countries have engaged in so much belligerence in just the last 25 years (Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)
Except thats nothing like the situation.
The situation is more like a drug addict who keeps breaking into his neighbours houses to steal there things and rape and murder their family members is now shouting about how his neighbours joining a group to protect themselves is being "an aggressor".
When was the last time NATO invaded Russia?.
Answer is never.
When was the last time Russia invaded a member of NATO?.
Theres a reason the Baltic states wanted into NATO so much, and that so many regions that were previously under "Russian influence" jumped at the opportunity.
They know the horrors that the Russian regime brings.
> As for 90% of my content — when the rest of the people in a forum are already spending 100% of their time bashing women, for instance, or men, or whatever, then the major thing I need to add is THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. That’s normal.
Ah I see you're just a Vatnik. There makes it clear, your are compelled to defend the Russian point of view and write paragraphs and paragraphs of whataboutism.
> evenhanded
Your view of "evenhandedness" is just straight up Russian propaganda.
At this point it's pretty much wilful libel from you... try being more intellectually honest! I'm neither a Vatnik nor a Tankie, nor any other dismissive term you care to throw, but it's the usual fare from people who push an agenda and someone brings up substance ("nevermind the facts, that's off topic, you're just a racist, antisemite, misogynist, uncle tom, self-hating Jew, anti vaxxer, white supremacist or whatever else") to distract from the substantive questions. The word "whataboutism" is also used to shut down any questioning about double standards, or about reasoning by analogy, or comparing apples to apples, etc.
A term which "which is used to disparage someone as a blindly patriotic and unintelligent jingoist who pushes the conventional views presented in Russian government media as well as those of Russian web brigades"
Hm, first of all, do Vatniks regularly go around condemning Russia's destroying of Grozny, Aleppo and Homs, killing civilians, arming rebels in Donbas, and now constantly saying "no to War" and advocating resumption peace negotiations? In Russian channels I keep challenging Russians the same way I challenge you. And in each case some jingoistic people think I'm "an agent of the other side". It's very common, when you're holding an extreme position (USA is 0% at fault, Russia is 100% at fault) to think anyone with a more balanced view is some kind of follower of "enemy" propaganda.
Second of all, I don't follow Russian propaganda, most of what I am telling you I pieced from mainstream Western sources like the BBC, PBS, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian, mainstream politicians, as well as Western experts and critics of the US (thankfully we have freedom of speech in our country).
You must really think Tulsi is a Russian asset, Noam Chomsky is a Vatnik, etc. You probably think that I follow Russian propaganda because you can't imagine someone thinking for themselves, following mainstream Western sources, arriving at the same conclusions as some of what Russia has been saying (because some -- not all -- of it is true). The argument "well, Hitler also says 2+2 is 4 so your conclusions are remarkably similar, you must be a nazi sympathizer" is a logical fallacy, in any case.
Third, you're uncritically repeating all CIA talking points, and always quietly dodging any direct questions come up with regard to US involvement. What should I call you? A jingoist American exceptionalist? A useful idiot for US intelligence agencies to destabilize more countries, agencies which have admitted to lying to our own citizens for decades, but every time you take everything they're saying at face value -- until they declassify 10 years later the extent of their involvement?
In fact, in your OWN ARTICLE, quoting from it multiple times, you conveniently omitted paragraphs which PROVE MY POINT:
He added that the lack of large-scale support from Russia was a major disappointment for the separatists, who lacked the manpower or weapons to combat government forces.
"Initially I assumed that the Crimea scenario would be repeated: Russia would enter," he told Zavtra. "That was the best scenario. And the population wanted that. Nobody intended to fight for the Luhansk and Donetsk republics. Initially everybody was for Russia."
After Donetsk and Luhansk held "referendums" on their independence from Ukraine in May, separatist leaders appealed to Moscow to accept the territories as Russian regions but Moscow responded with vague statements calling for "dialogue" between rebels and Kiev.
The separatist groups had not contemplated building functional states and had pinned their hopes on being absorbed by Russia, Strelkov said, reasoning that Moscow needed a land connection to Crimea, which it had annexed in March.
"And then, when I understood that Russia was not going to take us in — I associated myself with the resistance — for us that decision was a shock," Strelkov was quoted as saying.
So let's see. You asked how did Russia refrain from escalating. They told the Rebels they're not annexing them, and to work things out with Kyiv. They did however help the rebels more than the official government admits (another place where I call bullshit on Russian government claims... unlike you with US government claims).
Every time the CIA declassifies the extent of their role behind the events 10 years later, it turns out to be way bigger than the "US Vatniks" have ever admitted. By then, of course, they've moved on to the next thing, or a next generation of "US Vatniks" rises up to say, this time, it's 100% the other country's fault. Like, all those dozens of countries, they're all bad, and US is the indispensable nation, that is simply helping others achieve their freedom.
You don't see the irony of you defending the US coordinated official talking points, calling someone who thinks for themselves a Vatnik?
You would have to redefine both the words "intellectually" and "honest" for to fit even within the same realm of what you are doing.
You have already admitted that you intentionally bring up America constantly and interject into arguments that have no relation whatsoever to America to try and play "both sides".
You're both sides just happens to nearly exactly align with exactly the opinions of the Kremlin.
> and now constantly saying "no to War" and advocating resumption peace negotiations?
Yes this is exactly what the Vatniks are pushing, as they are the "little green men" both are lines from Vatnik propaganda.
The "no to war" campaign is never about Russia leaving Ukraine and going home and is _always_ about not letting Ukraine defending itself, it's always about feeding Ukraine to the woodchipper for the sake of others.
> to think anyone with a more balanced view is some kind of follower of "enemy" propaganda.
Your views are not balanced you admitted it yourself, you never talk of Russian responsibility or of Russia leaving Ukraine you just spread whataboutism about America.
A country that isn't even in this war.
> You probably think that I follow Russian propaganda because you can't imagine someone thinking for themselves, following mainstream Western sources, arriving at the same conclusions as some of what Russia has been saying (because some -- not all -- of it is true).
No I think you follow Russian propaganda because the vast majority of what you spew forth is exactly the line that the Kremlin is pushing.
> Third, you're uncritically repeating all CIA talking points
What are these? and what proof do you have?.
> In fact, in your OWN ARTICLE, quoting from it multiple times, you conveniently omitted paragraphs which PROVE MY POINT:
Did you even read the article.
He literally admits that in 2014, there were Russian soldiers in Donbass, something you categorically deny, respite a first hand source telling you are wrong.
>> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.
>> According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."
> You don't see the irony of you defending the US coordinated official talking points, calling someone who thinks for themselves a Vatnik?
Im not defending talking points im defending reality.
You just unashamedly, despite being shown evidence push the very same talking points and opinions that the Kremlin does.
HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a slam dunk.
1. You are repeating white house talking points. Everything you say aligns perfectly with what the line the white house is pushing. To this you say “I am not defending talking points I’m defending reality.” Funny, so when you do it, you recognize you are trying to defend facts and reality as you know it, and the fact that they align perfectly with all the propaganda out of the white house is irrelevant. When others do the same, it’s talking points and reality doesn’t matter. In other words, a pure double standard, diff rules for thee than for me. Sounds like your whole bunble of US jingoists has the same issue in general, that’s the problem.
2. You asked me to prove that your points align exactly with official US government and white house talking points? Well, here are just a few:
a) You consider that this invasion is totally unjustified and unprovoked (not even a little provoked). Actually it never is said in that order by official sources, always “unprovoked and unjustified”. An exact phrase that begs the question from the very beginning, designsd to be systematically repeated by everyone (official government websites and mainstream media repeat it verbatim) enough times that it will right away be accepted as the default position. “The Big Lie”, repeated enough times, already assumes the result. The invasion was unprovoked in every way. End of story. No discussion. Any discussion is “whataboutism”. Also an official talking point I have heard from US jingoists, not just in this war but every war US has been involved in.
b) you uncritically repeat that USA is “not involved in this war.” I guess we will have to redefine the word “in” or “involved” to a point that will even make Bill Clinton blush. It depends what your definition of “involved” is, but Bush pushed Ukraine into NATO even when its population didn’t want, when a new guy stopped the NATO deal the USA fomented a revolution in Ukraine to oust him (John McCain personally came to do so), USA trained and armed paramilitary groups including neo-nazi battallions, killed peace deals thay would have stopped the war, and shipped ever-increasing caliber of weapons to Ukraine (starting with Stinger missiles and HIMARS and then Bradley vehicles and Abrams tanks, and now considering sending fighter planes and perhaps even nukes). Their consistent meddling 3000 miles away are a major reason this war happened and is still goimg on, not just in this part of the world but others too.
The difference between us is that I am able to admit that Russia was involved since 2014 in escalating the conflict, aiding the rebels. You are UNABLE to admit anything of the sort about USA. Zip, nada. Total alignment with official line of the white house, that USA is not involved in any way, shape or form in this war.
b) You’ve also not seriously been able to consider that the CIA has been heavily involvsd (this time they sat out apparently) and wilfully ignored all evidence I presented to the contrary, including the Yahoo story.
c) You’ve totally ignored Naftali Bennett’s bombshell revelation that US blocked the peace deal he negotiated as tanks were moving into Kyiv, and both Putin and Zelensky had agreed to a deal in principle. You ignore that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said Putin can’t be reasoned with and that, even if Ukraine is ready to sign with Russia, the US and UK are not. You only repeat official talking points, and ignore every inconvenient fact.
d) You say that Putin started this war to restore the Soviet union, something he always wanted to do. Another talking point that is even beyond what the White House says, because it tries to at least not veer into unsupported conspiracy. It is more akin to the extreme partisan bias that democrats or republicans have.
e) You believe Russia is 100% responsible, and must be 100% defeated becauss it cannot be trusted. Another official talking point that is far from reality. Some blame Putin, some blame all Russians.
f) You say that NATO is purely defensive. Another talking point. Purely and uttely defensive. Very pure. Yugoslavia and Libya are whataboutism. How convenient. Same words used (“whataboutism”, “freedom”, “democracy”) almost in concert, to shut down any critical thinking or conversation that challenges the official claims, which are repeated VERBATIM (“purely defensive”, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “weapons of mass destruction”, “hacked the election”, etc.)
g) You say Russia has NO (not even a small one) legitimate reasons to be afraid of NATO in any way, shape or form. NATO is just people defending themselves against Russia, an aggressor country. Their red lines are illegitimate, and rejected out of hand. Every country (except US neighbors) has the right to make its own alliances and we will make sure of that.
h) You say we are doing this to free Ukraine from the clutches of an authoritarian regime. We spread democracy and freedom vs tyrants and dictators around the world. And vs China too.
All happen to spectacularly match or even EXCEED white house talking points!
And then you turn around and call me a Vatnik for saying “no to war”. So then explain:
1) First of all, I call it a war. That already violates the “official” propaganda
2) Second people who said NO TO WAR in Russia publicly got arrested for this. How can this be a vatnik position if the Russian government is arresting people for it?
3) Third, I condemned Russia for arming rebels in Donbas and contributing to escalating the war since 2014. This may not be anti-Russian enough for you, but it is certainly not “uncritically accepting US propaganda”. YOU accept that CIA didnt do anything to escalate this proxy war! I don’t do anything of the sort.
4) I also pointed out that Russia did far worse destruction in Grozny and Aleppo and Homs. You claim that is also a vatnik. I guess we need to redefine that term too, to be basically meaningless.
In short - you are a shill for US white house official positions, and actually exceed them in your jingoism. I on the other hand am able to go against Russian official positions, but the more balanced assessment I arrive at is still not 100% anti-Russian so it seems to you I am a vatnik.
I hope that you have actually understood my points and are able to address them. But there is a good chance you’ll ignore ALL inconvenient points like you did last time. It is the only way to maintain your cognitive dissonance and keep digging your heels in. I mean, you even ignored the quotes from YOUR OWN ARTICLE (which I obviously read - to find them) that show Russia was refusing to commit troops and actually pushed the separatists to make a deal with Kyiv. But what you did is simply… wait for it … re-paste what you wrote before my response! Ignoring everything I said completely! Amazing technique, no one can see thru such slick argumentstion haha
Oh will you? Will you response be like the others — ignoring most of what I said — or will you address each point I made?
Do I think the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, includint Crimea? I will answer it in depth.
1) First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Do you think that Ukraine should have allowed fresh water to flow to Crimea, and stopped bombing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk, give the degree of autonomy to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that they are demanding, allow them to teach Russian, etc.?
2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements, and things would have gotten back to normal. According to your own article it declined to absorb Luhansk and Donetsk and pushed them to work things out with Kyiv and remain inside Ukraine. That shocked Strelkov and he committed himself to supporting the rebels and fighting the far-right nationalist battallions.
3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. But I won’t ask you the corresponding questions about whether you think USA should stay out of other countries’ business 3000 miles away, dozens of countries around the world, because you asked me not to. After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever.
4) Regarding Crimea, I am aware that in 1954 it was gifted from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR without asking the people. In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. They were ignored. Then 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, but multiple times since then Crimea demanded autonomy and Kyiv signed concession agreements, which it broke repeatedly to assert its domininion over Crimea, force changes to its constitution etc. So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Do I think the will of the people on the ground should be respected? Yes, and countries including Ukraine should grant such populations a degree of autonomy, to the point where membership in this or that country is a minor detail (as it was in 1954 when Crimea changed hands).
5) In the current world, I think the only vehicle by which nationalistic fervor can be tempered is being part of the same federation (eg the Republic of California is part of the USA) and breaking those ties can lead to more instability and violence. In an ideal world, countries would be unbundled into multiple services (police, roads etc) with agencies competing for the business of a city, neighborhood etc. peacefully competing on how well they serve the people. Rather than treating people as livestock to own that graze on your land, which is how you currently think of Crimeans or Luhansk people etc. You think of countries as the primary actors, and anthropomorphosize them, while people are m mostly fodder, or stand-ins for monolithic “political aspirations”. This is exactly what I encounter when I speak to other statists, including people who want to build a Palestinian state, or people who believe China owns this or that territory forever. I think the current system of “country borders and ownership” is an unfortunate tinderbox because demographics change and there should be better, more libertarian systems. We can see the tinderbox firsthand eg in Yugoslavia or in nearly all the countries set up by the Sykes-Picot agreement.
Now answer my previous comment point by point as you promised to do.
> First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented.
Why except Crimea?.
Crimea was invaded just as much as the rest of Ukraine.
So the answer of do you think Russia should withdraw is no then right?, cause withdrawing from Ukraine requires withdrawing from Crimea as Crimea is Ukrainian land.
> 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements.
Russia had already entered Ukraine at that point, the Crimea annexation involved tanks, and soldiers.
Not to mention that Strelkov said Russian soldiers were fighting in Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014.
> 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades.
Russia planned to annex Crimea before any 'puppet' regime was implemented.
> After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever.
What peace has Russia kept, unless you think peace is a gun pointed at your back then where is the peace?.
The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour.
If you had a neighbour that kept trying to rape and kill your family and your only option was to join an alliance to help you defend yourself you would do it wouldn't you?.
> In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent.
In 1991, before Ukraine was an independent country they voted 94%ish to become an independent SSR in within the USSR.
54% voted to be part of Ukraine, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same.
Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?.
If someone held a gun to your head the next time you voted do you think that would be a legitimate vote?.
Are you going to keep your word? Go back and address my comment. You can do it in a sibling comment.
> Why except Crimea?.
Because I believe in people's self-determination. Like in Kosovo. Crimea is in Ukraine only because no one ever listened to them. They were already in Russian SSR but got transferred to Ukrainian SSR "as a gift".
And not just that, but they fought for their autonomy the entire time since 1991, the Kyiv government even signed agreement with them for this autonomy but then renegged on it and forced them to change their constitution:
Let me ask YOU. Right now, Crimea is relatively peaceful. Do you support bringing violence to Crimea, just so Ukraine can own it again?
I am not a statist who believes that the rights of states to fly a flag over a territory trump the welfare of millions of people. States and corporations are useful concepts, but they are still temporary, and for most civilians there are more important things in life. This time lapse of Europe shows how silly it is to kill millions just so a specific color to be over a certain area for a few years or decades:
I can understand many people don't feel that way, but I think it's because they've been brainwashed into supporting states and territory over humans welfare. Especially after 1950s or so, this fantasy came about that the borders of nation-states will be the same forever now. This creates dangerous tinderboxes, like all the countries established in the Sykes-Picot agreement (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, mixed into one). Or like in Yugoslavia, after they lost their organizing principle (socialism) they reverted to sectarian violence.
NATO also doesn't always believe in immutable borders, since they violated international law and ignored the UN security council, bombed civilians, and carved off Kosovo from Serbia. But you don't say that they are "occupying Serbia" at the moment, or "invaded Serbia". That's to be expected.
> The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour.
It's typical for each side to blame the other for its own aggressive expansion, calling it a mere defensive posture. NATO placing "defensive" installations in Romania and Poland were just the latest pre-emptive "defensive" measures. Somehow all this "defense" ends up in escalation. Statesmen know this. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is an argument for kindergarteners. Our politicians on all sides need to grow up - and this includes Russian ones.
> The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour.
Well, the USA has a long history of expanding, and renegging on all the agreements, since its founding. Go ask any native nations that used to be on this continent. More recently, go ask North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or whoever is on the OFAC list. They all had a deal with USA, but thanks to US representative democracy, the next admin killed it:
I could go on, but USA's very representative democracy makes it so that it can't be trusted. Why should Russia trust it?
> Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?.
Legitimate as in accurately reflecting the will of the people? Sure, check out the 1991 referendum. Only 54% of Crimea ever voted to be part of Ukraine, and since then they had a tough time inside it. Why si it so hard to believe they wanted to be independent in 2014?
Someone always has the monopoly of force while a referendum is taking place. If Ukraine had it, would that delegitimize the people's secret vote?
Do you think Catalonia's vote for independence, amid Spain's tanks and soldiers was legitimate? Or Kurds in Iraq?
OSCE refused to participate SPECIFICALLY TO NOT GRANT IT LEGITIMACY. Had it been overseen, a result along the expected lines would have solidified that Crimea wants to be independent.
Do you support bringing violence to Crimea, just so Ukraine can own it again?
Let's just say that's up to the mafia-like entities that currently run the peninsula.
What is clear at this point -- is that under no circumstances can it remain under the sovereignty of the RF. Which unfortunately means it can't be fully sovereign (to the extent of being able to determine its own alliances and such).
This matter was of course fully settled when these same mafia-like entities agreed to allow their territory to as a base of aggression against Ukraine.
All this talk of self-determination and autonomy is nice, you know, but -- once you start allowing your territory to be used as a base of rape and pillage against your neighbor -- that's it, man. You lose. And you can forget about any silly notions of "sovereignty" for at least a generation or three.
Just as with Germany and Japan after WW 2.
So that leaves either: (1) autonomy within Ukraine, or perhaps (2) UN protectorate. Either way, with some permanent territorial concessions to Ukraine (the military bases, at least) will be needed, so that the latter has, you know, the muscle to keep the enforced separation from the RF in place.
Along with paying their share of reparations, and a full investigation of all of those involved in repressions (disappearances and all that) of Tatar other activists since the invasion again. And the voiding of all real estate transactions since that time as well.
Those are the choices. And the leadership of these mafia-like entities pretty knows this, by this point.
As for violence - of course everyone would prefer less, not more. How much is ultimately needed is again -- a matter that rests in the hands of these mafia-like entities.
Since they're the ones who got this whole mess started, by choosing to allow their territory to be used as base from which to bring violence to Ukraine -- and at massively horrendous scale.
HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a slam dunk.
> 1. You are repeating white house talking points...
2. You asked me to prove that your points align exactly with official US government and white house talking points? Well, here are just a few:
> a) You consider that this invasion is totally unjustified and unprovoked...
It doesn't matter about provocations its still unjustified. But i don't think it was provoked by anything other then Putins want to expand and recreate the Russian empire.
I think the accidently posted "victory article" is very telling on this point ill quote some of it for you.
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
The 'tragedy of 1991' clearly refers to when Ukraine became an indepedent country from Russia, something that Russia sees as a slight and a terrible part of history.
NATO isn't mentioned a single time in that victory article by the way.
> b) you uncritically....
There are 0 active duty USA troops on the ground in Ukraine fighting in the Ukrainian army. I think you will find what killed the peace deals was when Ukraine retook Bucha and saw for their own eyes the horrors that Russia had left behind.
Helping a country defend itself is not in way shape or form escalatory so i don't why you think America helping Ukraine defend itself is, America becoming involved in the war, anymore then every other country that has sent aid has 'become involved in the war'.
No one has seriously considered giving Ukraine nukes, although ironically it would be fitting considering thats what ukraine gave up in exchange for promises that Russia would not do exactly what they are doing now.
Are you able to admit that Russian soldiers, from the Russian army and not just random rebels where involved since 2014?, cause it doesn't seem like your ready for that reality yet.
b) You’ve also not seriously been able to consider that the CIA has been heavily involvsd (this time they sat out apparently) and wilfully ignored all evidence I presented to the contrary, including the Yahoo story.
Your Yahoo story doesnt say what you claim it does, it says that the CIA was training Ukrainian special forces in Ukraine this is 100% unsuprising.
c) You’ve totally ignored Naftali Bennett’s bombshell revelation that US blocked the peace deal he negotiated as tanks were moving into Kyiv, and both Putin and Zelensky had agreed to a deal in principle. You ignore that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said Putin can’t be reasoned with and that, even if Ukraine is ready to sign with Russia, the US and UK are not. You only repeat official talking points, and ignore every inconvenient fact.
Your ignoring that Naftali later retracted that statement entirely.
>> In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began.
>> "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled.
Hey he thinks the same, to me Bucha was a massive turning point in the war.
> d) You say that Putin started this war to restore the Soviet union, something he always wanted to do. Another talking point that is even beyond what the White House says, because it tries to at least not veer into unsupported conspiracy. It is more akin to the extreme partisan bias that democrats or republicans have.
Do you want me to requote the victory article or is the reference to Ukraines succeeding from the Soviet Union in 1991 enough for you to know that this is obviously his goal?.
> e) You believe Russia is 100% responsible, and must be 100% defeated becauss it cannot be trusted. Another official talking point that is far from reality. Some blame Putin, some blame all Russians.
I believe the only person who can decide to leave Ukraine and end this war is Russia, and i think its very clear that Russia is only leaving with a massive defeat and will not willing leave before that.
> f) You say that NATO is purely defensive. Another talking point. Purely and uttely defensive. Very pure. Yugoslavia and Libya are whataboutism. How convenient. Same words used (“whataboutism”, “freedom”, “democracy”) almost in concert, to shut down any critical thinking or conversation that challenges the official claims, which are repeated VERBATIM (“purely defensive”, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “weapons of
mass destruction”, “hacked the election”, etc.)
I said NATO never invaded Russia which is true, but you also never answered my question about the last time that Russia invaded a country in NATO?.
> g) You say Russia has NO (not even a small one) legitimate reasons to be afraid of NATO in any way, shape or form. NATO is just people defending themselves against Russia, an aggressor country. Their red lines are illegitimate, and rejected out of hand. Every country (except US neighbors) has the right to make its own alliances and we will make sure of that.
NATO is mainly a defensive alliance against Russia yes, thats why, when Russian aggression increases so does NATO membership thats pretty easy to see.
1) First of all, I call it a war. That already violates the “official” propaganda
A lot of People call it a war now, even Putin has.
> 2) Second people who said NO TO WAR in Russia publicly got arrested for this. How can this be a vatnik position if the Russian government is arresting people for it?
You didn't read what i said, i said that the people pushing peace that doesn't involve anything but Russias complete withdrawl from Ukraine and the restoration of Ukraines full 1991 border is a vatnik position. These people don't actually want peace they want to freeze the conflict or to give Russia a reward for the invasion.
> 3) Third, I condemned Russia for arming rebels in Donbas and contributing to escalating the war since 2014. This may not be anti-Russian enough for you, but it is certainly not “uncritically accepting US propaganda”. YOU accept that CIA didnt do anything to escalate this proxy war! I don’t do anything of the sort.
You going to condemn the Russian army getting involved in 2014 too?.
4) I also pointed out that Russia did far worse destruction in Grozny and Aleppo and Homs. You claim that is also a vatnik. I guess we need to redefine that term too, to be basically meaningless.
Parts of Bakhmut look very similiar to Aleppo and Grozny, why don't you want to recongise the horrors of this war?.
I had to snip some of it cause the comment was too long for HN.
No matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it escalatory.
Why do you (and other pro Russians) view an alliance that effectively was created to combat Russian aggression view its expansion as aggression against Russia.
I'll quote someone to tell you why.
>>> Of course Russia and Russian presidents hate NATO, it stops them conducting imperialistic wars against the countries that they wish to subjugate.
>>> No one should care what Russia thinks, it's clear not allowing countries like Georgia and Ukraine into NATO just causes Russia to invade them anyway
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36597883
> Oh I dunno, appeal on the United Nations security council (just as they futitely tried to prevent the invasion of Iraq), in public speeches that US media refuses to broadcast (unless they can take a tiny clip out of context).
The UN uploads all of there clips to YouTube yet your claim is unsourced.
> Suppose Russia wanted to do everything you and US propaganda claims to Ukraine (up to and including apparently, genociding all Ukrainians, restoring the Soviet Union or whatever is asserted and critically accepted, just like “weapons of mass destruction” and “they hate us for our freedoms”)
This isn't a claim by me but rather by the Russian TV I'll link the video.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/153130188362898636...
> Then why did they not invade in 2015? Why wait 8 years? The only answer I got here is “well Russians are strange”.
> If we didn’t expand NATO and train Ukrainian paramilitaries to kill Russians
You keep using these words like it's some sort of gotcha.
The Ukrainians are being trained to defend their home from an imperialistic invasion against from a country that talks about how many millions of them they will have to kill to subjugate them.
Talks about how they aren't a real country with a real culture and really just Russian lands that have been unjustly taken from them.
> then the worst that would happen is Ukraine would implement the Minsk II agreements, and its fate would have been even better than Georgia after 2008
Why would Ukraine implement Minks II when Russia violated Minsk I and the Budapest Memorandum?.
Did Russia pinky promise that this one time specifically they will actually follow the treaties they sign?
Or was it another step out of Russias playbook to try and freeze the war in a way that was advantageous to them?.
> Also, if Russia did nothing, rather than arming rebels, they would probably have been far better off.
They did a lot more than arming rebels as Igor Strelkov says.
> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said. > According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."
> I criticize both Russia and USA both as imperialists. You criticize Russia BUT NOT USA. That’s the difference.
90% of your content is devoted to criticising America and down playing Russias involvement I the war.
Hell you won't even admit the Russian army was involved in Donbas's in 2014, then the person who was the _leader of the breakaway region_ tells you they where.
reply