“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
It's actually upsetting to read some people defend an illegal war of aggression in this thread. Just practice the golden rule for a change and imagine yourself being in the same situation. What if it was your country being invaded? Would you take up arms to defend your family, your friends, your neighbors? The bombs are dropping everywhere, and you have to hide in basements to prevent their terror attacks from taking away all that you hold dear.
Of course a country being invaded has the right to defend themselves and the right to fight back. The aggressors could end this war immediately but they wont because their leader is an insular autocrat. Isolating himself and giving orders without considering the best for the rest of the world. Devaluing human life from on top of a pedestal. This is the danger what happens when one single individual gains too much power and the rest of the world needs to be unanimously against it regardless of blind idealism.
A war can be considered legal if it meets the criteria and conditions set forth by international law. On the other hand, an "illegal war" typically refers to armed conflicts that do not meet the requirements outlined in international law.
What's even more upsetting are the people who can write comments like yours, without irony. Why is it anybody who points out the causes of the conflict, gets decried as a Russian asset? Nobody here has explicitly said what Russia did wasn't illegal or immoral, because it is. But what people like you don't understand, is that events like this don't happen in isolation. These moves are highly interactive and very dangerous. You can't ignorantly just point to one in a vacuum and say, "'that's' imperialism!"
Were people like you making similar protestations when the west backed the Maidan coup, which overthrew the democratically elected President (Yanukovych) in Ukraine? Were you criticizing the US for encouraging Ukraine to ignore and break its peace treaty that was agreed to with Russia, under the Minsk Accords? Were you criticizing the west for it's media blackout of the continued shelling and massacring of Russian speaking citizens in eastern Ukraine (i.e. Donbass and Luhansk), while they were crying for Russia's help? Of course you weren't. You have no idea what I'm even talking about. Because you for, this conflict began with Russia moving into Ukraine. You only know what the MSM propaganda in the west tells you you're supposed to believe. I fully understand Putin when he called the US "The Empire of Lies." And people like you ignorantly fall for the bait. Every single time. Without fail. You're a successful product of the American ideological and propaganda system. You haven't seen past the dense fog of propaganda that's deployed to keep you ignorant. It's why the hidden is deliberately and intentionally hidden from you and they don't want you finding out about it.
Why does hating western hypocrisy on the home front make me a Putin shill? Why is politics a 'team sport' that I'm betraying, because I call out the warmongering of my own team?
You bring up a lot of things I never typed that aren't relevant to what I actually typed. It shows how deluded you are. For all the "western propaganda" where is all the evidence you speak of that that Russia invading Ukraine is somehow justified? Truth is not propaganda. Instead of attacking your imaginary fairy-tale "western" beast, try facing the reality that you are actually wrong. Take a mental journey and imagine yourself in the same position of the victims of war, then how wrong it is to somehow try to justify any of it.
… where is all the evidence you speak of that that Russia invading Ukraine is somehow justified?…
Did you even read what I wrote?:
Nobody here has explicitly said what Russia did wasn’t illegal or immoral, because it is.
Apparently not.
Take a mental journey and imagine yourself in the same position of the victims of war, then how wrong it is to somehow try to justify any of it.
I have. Have you? Did Putin not make peaceful overtures to Ukraine? Did he not want to come to a mutually beneficial arrangement? Did Ukraine not 'agree' to the Minsk Accords?
Straight up. Israel and Ukraine are under constant attack these days and absolutely not be criticized for defending themselves even if they don't always go about it exactly the right way.
Are you seriously comparing an apartheid state to a country that's a victim of an invasion? Is Israel "defending itself" when it slaughters Palestinian children?
Have you ever been there? Do you know what apartheid actually means? Every single Palestinian without citizenship doesn't have it only because they refused. And furthermore, in 2005 Israel actually forced its own citizens out of the Gaza strip, whole family is dislocated at gunpoint by their own government. And when the Palestinians moved in, the terrorists among them tore down the infrastructure and somehow convinced their brethren that the Israelis were to blame. Israel is not the one who's incriminately shooting rockets from hospitals and schoolyards. Israel is not the one encouraging citizens to enter houses of worship and go on killing sprees. Israel is not the one who is encouraging and applauding suicide bombers attacking bus stops and pizza shops. Israel is the one who is sending out texts and dropping leaflets warning people to get out of buildings that they suspect their housing military equipment used to attack them before bombing said buildings. It is easily within Israel's capability set to kill every last Palestinian and I imagine just about any other country put through what Israel's been put through would be a lot more aggressive. They aren't always in the right. There are things they have done wrong. But an apartheid state they are not.
Forgot to mention, the terrorists in charge of the Gaza strip also diverted equipment meant to be used for construction and instead chose to use it to dig tunnels to get through to Israel to carry out attacks and kidnappings.
I'm sorry, how do you think YOU would behave if your homeland were colonized? You'd just politely ask the colonizers to leave until they felt bad enough for you to listen? Not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified, but they're clearly the victims in this scenario.
To be clear, Israel is not a unique evil. The US and China are at least as bad. But Israel is not magically exempt from criticism, nor is it remotely comparable to Ukraine.
Israel are not colonizers though. Israel is one of the indigenous people finally returning to their homeland. You can say they should share and I agree but the immediate attempt at their annihilation right when they were established definitely indicated that many of their neighbors were not keen on sharing nicely. It's awful that the children in Gaza are suffering but the blame for that lies with the terrorists who use those children as human shields, tore down the infrastructure, and diverted construction materials meant for humanitarian aid to be used to enable further terrorist attacks, not the country that forced it's own citizens out and left a fully functioning set of infrastructure for the new inhabitants.
Edit- I was hoping to get away from Reddit culture of disagree=downvote and was looking forward to productive respectful discussions here. So far it seems not to be working out but maybe we can still turn it around
If white Americans today went back to Europe and forcibly displaced the people living there, they would be colonizers. It doesn't matter that they can trace their lineage back to that location. The idea that blood links you to land is nonsense.
Jesus Christ, how much Israeli propaganda have you been drinking? I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but even assuming that's all true, whose fault is it that people there needed humanitarian aid in the first place? Try reading sources on Palestinians that don't have a pro-Israel agenda sometime.
My instance disables downvotes, so I can neither downvote you nor see your negative score, but good. I'm glad you're getting downvoted. That's exactly what uncritically regurgitated propaganda deserves.
How much Palestinian propaganda have you been reading? Americans weren't forcibly expelled to begin with and even if they were they haven't been actively demonstrably yearning and attempting to return ever since so the analogy fails on two counts. A third count as well actually because Americans haven't had bigotry, prosecution, and murder sprees and mobs and pogroms constantly plaguing them everywhere they've been since they left europe.
Regarding the downvotes- good to know although ironically you are the person who would uld be least wrong to downvote me. You're at least articulating what you disagree with than giving a cowardly anonymous thumbs down like those who have been downvoting.
Why does any of that matter? Why does any of that make it okay to displace the people who currently live in a place? It's their homeland, too. They have at least as much a right to it as Israelis.
Shit, I'm for landback for indigenous Americans, and even I don't think non-indigenous people should be kicked off the land they currently live on and relocated. And Native Americans have a much more recent claim to American land than Israelis do to Palestine.
Why does the fact that Jews have not been safe in any society on the planet in the past 2000 years matter? Why does it matter that they were forced off the land? Why does it matter that this bothered us and we've been demonstrably hoping and trying to return for the past two millenia? Because if any of those weren't true I might cede that in some capacity we gave lost our claim to it. However the fact remains that we were forcibly dispossessed of our land and have a right to go back. Of course not at the expense of entirely uprooting those who moved in after us but enough that they and we really should share the land nicely.
If I could ask my own question in return I'd ask why recency of claim matters more than any of the factors I mentioned above. And for the record I agree that native Americans should have far more land rights than they do today. But at the very least they can dwell in a portion of their homeland without the leaders of the rest of those who reside who openly calling for their complete removal and/or extermination and that's more than can be said for today's Jews in Israel.
And none of that matters even one single iota to a Palestinian child who's just been shot in the chest. Go ahead, go up to a grieving Palestinian family and tell them, "Well, I'm oppressed too." So what? So fucking what? Having been displaced and oppressed doesn't magically make it okay for you to turn around and do the same thing to others.
I don't have a problem with Jews living in Palestine if they don't displace the Palestinians. But that's exactly what they're doing. Jews, like anyone else, should be free to live absolutely anywhere on Earth without fear. But they have no right to inflict terror on others. No amount of oppression could possibly justify that.
As for why recency of claim matters, I don't think it's necessarily that important, but I was making a point. However, you could make the argument in the case of Native Americans that they're still quite tied to the lands they live(d) on and often care for those lands in a way colonizers don't, and therefore their presence is important for environmental reasons. You can't really make the same argument for Jews and Israel.
Hahaha, what? Native Americans don't have anyone calling for their extermination? They're literally still subject to a genocide, like many racial minorities in the US. They were involuntarily sterilized up until the 1970s, and they're still treated brutally by the government (and especially police).
:::spoiler child sexual abuse I literally heard a speech in person from a Native man who was taken to a residential school and repeatedly sexual assaulted until he was suicidal while his age was still in single digits. There are people alive today who have experienced this stuff.
Nor do any of those points matter to innocents stabbed to death in a synagogue or blown up trying to buy some pizza. The issue is that Israel tried just existing but literally the day it was established it was attacked in an extermination attempts by literally every country surrounding it. Being oppressed doesn't make it ok to turn around and oppress others but being under a constant state of siege does make it ok to take actions to ensure your safety as well as that of your citizens. Would you say that literal thousands of rocket attacks, hundreds of suicide bombings, bouts of stabbings, bouts of shootings, and more in addition to at least 3 military actions jointly taken by surrounding nations doesn't count as a state of siege? If not what does?
regarding recency, we absolutely can make the argument of environmental importance to the land. See what twain wrote of it in our absence. Even now there is a literal green line separating land under our control vs under palestinian control. And I can tell you the green is definitely not on the palestinian side.
And I never said nobody is calling for native americans to be exterminated (although I do believe that it is true that there is nobody around today so bold as to outright say their continued existence here is intolerable in the literal sense that they should be rounded up and killed if they don't leave and the dissolution of reservations is an absolute condition of their policy that they refuse to revise in any way despite the government of the gaza strip saying just that about israel) I said america's leaders are not calling for their complete removal or extermination which is currently has been so for a while (~20 years) albeit not nearly as long as it should have been(~200 yrs).
I already said that not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified. I believe attacks on the Israeli government and military are at least potentially justified, but no, random Israeli citizens should not be killed. But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did. And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians? Besides, I'd say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures. Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the "invasion" at the southern border.
Genuine question, because I literally don't know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas? Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis? And if it's the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did.
I disagree. When the migrants are refugees you definitely become the aggressor when you start campaigns that explicitly call for their extermination.
And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians?
because the palestinians supported these military campaigns
Besides, I’d say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures.
I disagree. What would you do when the enemy is indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian centers and fields of crops from hospitals, schoolyards, and apartment buildings? Let them keep at it and just call the occasional wildfire or dead civilian the cost of doing the right thing or bomb the launch site? If you bomb it do you do so without warning or give a 2-3 minute heads up that you're going to do so? When people are constantly climbing the fence to commit terroristic acts on civilians do you just shrug or build a wall? That wall by the way has cut such events by over 80% and been lauded by analysts as a highly effective security measure.
Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the “invasion” at the southern border.
except that there have not been multiple terrorist campaigns endorsed by the mexican government encouraging terrorism on US soil with the explicit goal of the extermination or eviction of every single american from the land. If that were the case I'd agree with them about what we should do.
Genuine question, because I literally don’t know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas?
the former
Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis?
the former
And if it’s the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
it's possible although then I would blame the terrorists who destroy infrastructure and revel in their brethren's suffering as they exploit it to demonize Israel rather than Israel themselves who, as I stated, actually left all of the infrastructure for the gaza strip intact when they pulled out.
I would flee from the front line and I recommend everybody else do the same. Why get involved when states fight over their sphere of influence? Ukraine isn't a state worth giving your life for. US imperial hegemony (a major reason for this conflict) should not be supported. They will abuse any support given to further their own goals and throw you (or anyone) under the bus when convenient.
Bunch of people keep talking about how the US shouldn't broker peace deals and China should. Hypocrisy at its finest.
The fact is, having a third party nation recommendation for peace or no peace is a standard for centuries, and if that nation is a global hegemony with nuclear weapons, then it makes sense.
The US is one of the least peaceful states in the world, and that's no easy feat. Plus, they are openly involved in the proxy war, as opposed to China.
You’re arguing against a position that’s every bit as dumb and I’ll-informed, as the chick that heads up the NED, attempting to overthrow regimes opposed to the US all over the world. The people replying to you in ignorance aren’t in need of a ‘debate’, but an education.
If they actually had any influence instead of being a laughing stock, then it would be the norm, yes. They don't though, but China could and would be the better example instead of a Red herring. Or Australia (they don't have nukes, but similar influence and such).
What's more interesting is how it seems all the home grown, American establishment sycophants think backing a coup attempt against Ukraine's democratically elected president (Yanukovych) doesn't count, when you tell them the US had a hand in starting the conflict.
Why does the United States get absolutely any say in a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, there meddling stopped the last peace deals, and this is really none of their buisness. Let Ukraine set there terms and negotiate for themselves.
From what I understand, that's the idea. They are just affirming the Ukrainian position and are saying hey, we won't withhold support and force you into a peace agreement where Ukraine would concede land to Russia despite not wanting to
Except that isnt what was said what was said is that the United States will reject any peace treaty that does not include total Russian withdrawal, they are not just giving support in general, or to a point in particular, but dictating a term. This is a conflict that offically the US is not a party to and as such the US should not be making statements like this. Agian in my opinion it should not go farther than "The United States supports Ukraine in their efforrs for peace, and for all reasonable terms they put forward" if they go farther and they wanted to show it in support it would have been "As stated before, The United States suports the Ukrainian position, including the one mentioned by [offical X] on [Day y] that any peace would include total Russian withdrawl" given nither happened, it can only be taken as the US dictating terms for a thing that they have no buisness or right setting terms for
Actually that's basically what it says in the first paragraph
the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms
Basically saying Ukraine won't be pressured to accept a peace deal until they're in a stronger position
First I dont see what there suport has to do with anything, and that is why I did not mention it, and second that is what the job of a meadeator country is for, right now the PRC has been offering but someone sugessted an African Union nation or a nation from south America, to ensure both sides get heard. That is couched language to discurage peace, Russia has indicated its willingness to talk. The longer they wait the more people die.
First of all, my suggestion was that it'd be up to them. If Ukraine and Russia are OK with PRC acting as mediator that's really all there is to it. My point was that PRC aren't necessarily neutral.
Secondly, a peace doesn't necessarily mean less people dead in the long run, Russia has shown how little regard they have for civilian lives, and their imperialistic posturing begs the question as to who would be next? Moldova perhaps?
As an allegory, consider that you have a neighbour who believes he should be entitled to taking the eldest of your three children and half of your house. Would a good mediator then suggest that your neighbour should only get 25% of your house and perhaps your youngest child? I think not, and I think that's more or less the position Ukraine has when it comes to their territorial integrity. I'm sure they're open to debate NATO membership as well as keeping Sevastopol open, but they have been rather firm that they will not discuss any option involving concession of land to Russia, and I don't think you, the PRC or anyone else are in a position to judge them for that.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
I expect that Ukraine is also saying "no" to any peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal.
I would interpret a statement like this from the US as meaning "we're not going to lean on the Ukrainians to accept any sort of compromise that they're not already interested in accepting," which is perfectly fine IMO.
How the Ukrainians act at the negotiating table and how they negotiate ought to be left up to them. However it is out of line for the United States to say this, first as a nation who isn't officially party to the conflict setting any terms or tones to the negotiation is out of line we should be hearing this from Ukrainian Officials instead. This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
... This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
"There are two kinds of countries. Those the US sanctions, and those the US arms."
Anyone who's ever lived abroad is capable of comprehending what so many US citizens seem incapable of doing, and that's understand why the US isn't liked very much by a 'lot' of other countries; including the big players in Europe. Even former military advisors have said as much on the MSM, only coincidentally, to never get invited back on again, after mentioning it.
While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn't the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.
There's a huge irony that sits at heart of the American ideological system that never dawns on most people.
If you read the history of the modern university system in the US, one thing that's worth highlighting was when 'area studies' effectively got banned. That's stuff like Russian and Eastern Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, etc. There are still a couple of exceptions in places like Yale or Harvard, but they were largely disbanded due to the efforts of social scientists that deemed them 'unscientific'. And yet it's ironic, because if you really have ever gotten the chance to speak with a lot of foreigners, one thing that comes through is the level of shock or pause when they ultimately discover that most of the closed minds in the American intellectual sphere are 'liberal' minds.
In theory, America is a perfectly free and open society. In practice, it's an open society with a closed mind. American intellectuals don't listen to the rest of the world. The elite wisdom essentially believes that only societies which adopt the American model and copy American style, western liberal values, can really succeed. Really cuts against the whole grain of 'diversity'.
Contrast that with China for instance, in the foreign policy sphere. Whatever else you think about the CCP, in commerce or military operations or multilateral institutions, in dealing with them, one doesn't walk away with the impression they're trying to 'make you Chinese'. They aren't trying to export Chinese Communist Party values to the Taliban. They aren't demanding you adopt gay rights. They aren't asking you to adopt their authoritarian model of governance, etc. Sure, you can point to things like the Uyghurs as an exception. But then again, ask an Iraqi, ask a Libyan, ask a Cuban, ask a Guatemalan, etc. Liberals love to proselytize their own ideas to the ends of the Earth, even when it means military action, but can barely tolerate a domestic Christian missionary in their own neighborhood.
It always reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew's brilliant refutation of liberal western nonsense.
The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at. If you really don't want China it doesn't have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?
So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it's troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn't, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn't that meddling in the war?
They say they want peace and are willing to hold talks, I am mot sure what your getting at, in no war ever has the beginning of peace talks been the cesation of the war, and how the war ends is determined by said peace talks, talks that of right bow are not happening.
Now if you are trying to argue that the mere act of trying to hold peace talks or offering to hold peace talks, or holding peace talks is taking a position in the war? I dont think we need to inform Switzerland that they have infact never been nutral in any conflict they mediated.
As for what China wants, they have stated all they want is peace many times, they do not have a horse in the race on who gets what, that makes them the ideal mediators.
The end goal is the cessation of the war, but the fighting contenues untill a cesefire or peace treaty is negotiated and signed, and the war contenues untill said treaty is signed. A sad truth of war is while diplomats are haggling over words on a page the fighting still contues, the war ends when the negotiations end.
Is this really true though? A neutral third party would not supply weapons or have any economic incentive to the outcome of the conflict, which China plainly does have. I'm not saying the US or really any NATO country is in a better position, however saying China is only interested in peace and are a neutral third party is disingenuous.
And as to what Blinken is saying, that's something Ukraine has been saying since the invasion began. Sure it's not his place, however if you interpret it charitably, it could also be construed as supporting the stance of your ally in the face of pressure towards an agreement they don't really want.
Please enlighten me both on what the PRCs economic and Weapon selling intrests lie, because as far as I can tell they have not supplied any weapons, and the only economic action if you can even call it that, that the PRC has taken was not play along with US Sanctions. I would also like to hear who you think would be a better medator, because contrary to popular belief I too would like this conflict to come to a quick and diplomatic solution, the less deaths, the less destroyed homes the better.
Second I don't see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more, it has lost that ability quite a while ago by virtue of its actions on the geopolitical stage, This whole thing would read different if it was a genaric "The United States backes Ukrainians position in this negotiation" but that would ofcorse require negotiations to be happening, negotiations that are not at present happening. This is a very clear, position the US is taking and "Strongly Sugesting" Ukraine adopt aswell.
China has supplied drones and more than likely advanced technology like semi-conductors and equipment meant for operating radar systems/weapons guidance and similar. Some of this is not "official" support, in the sense that civilian Chinese companies are supplying drones, however this is certainly being used for military purposes within Ukraine. Whether or not this can be proven 100% is less important, since the appearance of bias is as detrimental to neutrality as actual bias.
With regards to the economic incentive, Chinese trade has increased by 30% since the invasion began, making China by far the most important trading partner for Russia.
Now, I am making no judgement as to the morality of this and I am certainly not making any pro US arguments, I am just pointing out that painting China as a neutral part here is disingenuous, they absolutely have interests that align more closely with their good friend and trading partner Russia vs. helping Ukraine and the rest of Europe reach any goals they might have.
Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more
That's fine and I understand the sentiment (although as a rhetorical device, I find the "principle of charity" to be worthwhile and helpful towards mutual understanding), however I don't think this makes either Russia or China any better - they just might all be a bunch of evil bastards :)
Ha, the local tankies are starting to find out that they're outnumbered by reddit-fuges. Still, I believe that barring a negotiated peace, the war will continue for many, many years. The alternatives are either Russian withdraw and/or regime change or Ukrainian collapse, and neither seem likely in the near future. Even Kissinger, which is as blood-thirsty as they come, has suggested a negotiated peace, and it's hard to imagine a negotiation that doesn't concede something to Russia. The question isn't a moral one. The deaths will continue to pile up until negotiation begins.
look, no reasonable person wants war-- but that's the problem: those who started the war and are continuing it aren't being reasonable. And they're not going to negotiate any sort of peace if they don't get what they wanted by stating the war in the first place: a slice of Ukraine. so, also believe there won't be any peace until Russia leaves Ukraine, and that may take years to convince them to do-- at the barrel of a gun, sadly. Possibly a Russian regime change.
as for the local tankies... i don't know how much of that you read, but when attempts at rational arguments failed, they just resorted to personal attacks and bullying, which is nothing foreign to me. battle-hardened with the most toxic of reddit trolls, it just rolls of my back. :P
Ukraine will at least need to make some sort of compromise over the port at Sevastopol. From what I understand, that's the only port available for Russia's Black Sea fleet. Russia has historically held a naval base there and would likely be unyielding on that point. Forcing Russia to butt out is one thing, but them losing significant amounts of their defense capability is another.
Perhaps an option could be that Ukraine gets their land back, but there's some agreement that Russia can rent out the land around the port at Sevastopol.
Ukraine gets paid for the use of their land (and ultimately they still own it), and Russia gets exclusive access to that part of the port where they can do whatever they need.
Or you know it could be that Crimea is primarily populated by Russians and the regime the west installed after the coup was actively doing pogroms against Russian speaking people in Ukraine.
The timeline you're proposing doesn't even make sense. Yanukovych was out of power by February 22, 2014. Russia was laying the groundwork for the annexation of Crimea at roughly the same time. The next day, protestors were in place in Crimea. In under a week, Russian special forces invaded. The central Ukrainian government was still trying to get its britches on. There was no time available to be "doing pograms".
Russia had a deal with the existing democratically elected government in Ukraine to have a base in Crimea. Claiming this was laying groundwork for annexation is ridiculous because there was no reason for any sort of annexation if Ukraine stayed on friendly relations with Russia.
Meanwhile, the pogroms were already happening before the regime took power. I've linked you the sources for this at least a dozen times. The fact that you continue to pretend none of this happened makes it pretty clear that facts don't actually matter to you.
I hold no quarrel with their base in Crimea, as I have said numerous times on this post. The red line was sending special forces ("little green men") to take over the government and later hold a sham election.
That answer is frankly a steaming pile of bullshit. Take this:
So this organization was built around the premise that the CIA could no longer operate and ‘promote democracy’ around the world the old fashioned way but now needed to use new methods and techniques which included the establishment of Non-Government Organizations to be able to continue to do without scrutiny by the public.
A plain reading of other quotes in the answer about the CIA is that the covert nature and problematic track record of the CIA is anathema to building open democratic institutions. The ideal of the NED is to be a more open and transparent organization. This pattern is repeated again and again: take a quote, then misread it to a level of incompetence that borders on malice.
They also equate the NED to the CIA multiple times without actually showing that is true. They show merely that the NED took over some functions that the CIA used to perform and do them in the clear. From what I understand, this happened in the 1970's and 1980's as the excesses of the CIA in the post-WW2 era were coming to light. Congress and the public demanded better behavior. The intelligence agencies have never gotten to be perfect angels, but on the plus side they stopped trying to mind control people with drugs (likely).
Then take this quote:
So here is an ‘NGO’ which is funded 99.4% by the US Government, doesn’t sound like much of a non-government organization.
This is a common structure in the US, notably with the RAND think tank. RAND is run separately from the US government but with a federal budget allocation. The advantage is having someone outside of government who can operate with some independence. RAND can produce ideas without being beholden to politicians or orthodoxy. China is looking into creating a similar think tank to generate ideas that would otherwise be shut down by the party. Given this person has no familiarity with this structure, my conclusion is they have no idea what they're talking about.
The sources are also sometimes extremely questionable. Take Paul Craig Roberts, who they cite for multiple claims of CIA involvement on behalf of establishing military bases, including Ukraine in NATO, and profiteering by taking over Ukraine's economy. Obviously the author's only criteria for inclusion was "agrees with me", because the guy is an absolute nutter. 9/11 truther, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and has rather revisionist views of the Holocaust.
By relying on an article, you rely on their vetting of sources. They showed that they freely used at least one unreliable source.
@pingveno Russia does have another port in the mainland, at Novorossiysk. Why did it not decide to use it instead? That is out of my understanding. Perhaps Putin just wanted to make Ukraine vulnerable in the south, or gain a longer shore on the Black Sea. Otherwise, I don't know.
heh, I'm sure Russia very much feels this way, but I don't see how Ukraine needs to make any compromises at all, nor why Russia should be given the opportunity to save any face. They got themselves into this mess and have done some terrible things. They deserve to crawl away with their tails between their legs with nothing to show for it. Why should they get anything after what they've done?
I fully agree that Russia crawling away with their tail between their legs would be the ideal solution. But at what price? Russia would be willing to spill a lot of blood over that base, even compared to an already bloody war. The reality is that starting negotiations with the assumption that the end agreement will include guarantees around Sevastopol will save a lot of lives without making a huge change from the 2014 status quo.
I'd love to see it, but that's just petty vengeance on my part, wanting to see a bully punished.
I don't know if a humiliated Russia is an ideal solution. The humiliation of Germany after WW I greatly contributed to the rise of Hitler, and we don't want to see a repeat of that.
An ideal solution IMHO would be regime change, a complete withdrawl to pre-2014 borders, and full blame placed on Putin and his staunchest cronies, allowing the general public and even his supporting public to save face. The story that he lied to and misled the public might alleviate some humiliation at the withdrawal. Something like how WW II was handled should be the model: defeat of the previous regime, strict laws banning the worst behaviors leading to Putin's dictatorship, curtailing corruption, and strong investment and rebuilding of Russian society by the victors. People tend to forget hurt egos more easily when they're prosperous.
Whipping the dog that bit you doesn't make a safer dog.
Edit: PS, it's easy for me to say this. I have no friends or family raped, tortured or murdered by Russians. I have had no children abducted into re-education camps. If it happened yo me, I'd want a blood bath, a murderous swath cut through Russia to the Kremlin. I understand and sympathize with Ukrainians who want this. I'm just saying that, unless you're commited to genocide, it's more likely to come back around in an endless cycle of vengeance.
Speaking of the Marshall Plan, it had considerable push back at the time. It took a Soviet backed coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 for Americans to realize that leaving Europe starved and in tatters would push Europe into the arms of the Soviets. The Marshall Plan was a relatively cheap way to win battles before they ever occurred.
Russia will not, of course, be the same as post-WW2 Nazi Germany. The victors must be Russians, not outsiders. But Westerners should be willing to give freely, maybe with some basic stipulations around rule of law so Russia doesn't fall back into being a dictatorial kleptocracy that threatens its neighbors.
Russians being victors meaning Russians overthrowing their oppressor? Because a Russian victory in Ukraine, as unlikely as it would be, would lead only to more aggression and certainly no outside investment (except perhaps from China, which is facing its own problems).
The "victors" would not be Russians defeating Ukrainians militarily, but instead reformists Russians changing Russia from the inside. The Russo-Ukraine war will of course be part of the backdrop. Even many military fanboys in Russia are realizing that the war has been incompetently run. With the right person diverting that anger into productive forms, positive change could be achieved. Then there might be a return of outside investment, though I would expect investors to be slow to begin with (once burned, twice shy). Change coming from the West will be viewed with too much suspicion. Only Russians can change Russia.
the price is Ukranian freedom, and it's worth fighting for until Russia backs down. There is no rational argument to be made for Ukraine sacrificing the freedom of its citizens, for if they do - if Russia learns it can bully Ukraine into sacrificing its citizens and land - it will just come back for more.
russia has proven it will not honor its agreements, or this war would not be happening now. they need to learn their lesson and be beaten.
Most of the people supporting the western 'moral cause' for Ukraine, have 'zero' understanding of the actual issue. They only know what the MSM in this country tells them. Until that changes, there's no hope for a productive conversation. They think the conflict began at the moment the Russian incursion happened. If you tell them to justify Ukraine's ignoring of the Minsk Accords, they have no answer and won't reply, because they don't know what it is. And in the midst of all that, Ukraine was shelling and murdering the Russian speaking population in Donbass and Luhansk, all the while Russia was waiting for them to implement the agreement and cease it's military actions. You heard 'zip' about it from the western media. And you hear 'zip' about it from the people raking Russia over the coals in this thread.
Russia essentially wanted the Ukraine to become a State to Russia, similar to what Japan's relationship to the US became, after World War 2. And it was 'signed off on', by Ukraine and other European states. The US encouraged Ukraine to ignore it and thumb it's nose at Russia, while they militarily armed Ukraine, flowing in weapons, and building it up to the point where it could then safely violate the terms agreed upon and become yet another US client state, on Russia's doorstep. The good old, 'hold the baby in your arms and then hit your ex-husband while he attacks back, trying to rescue the situation', and then call him the villain who's abusing the baby.
I initially joined lemmy about 2 years ago, and the place was swamped with them. They have their own instance they hide out on, which lemmy.ml federates with but beehaw.org and sopuli.xyz do not. It will be interesting to see how the lemmy landscape evolves as time passes on.
yeah... i have an account on both lemmy.ml, and on beehaw.org. currently, I'm sticking with lemmy.ml just because I want to see more content, and I think I an handle the shitty people due to having a think skin, but it's nice to know that there are nicer instanes, should i need to deal with it on those terms.
Yup, I also have an account on Beehaw but I've been switching back and forth since the local feed on this instance hasore traffic. I've found the community to be a lot more pleasant over there though
Wait, I thought Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state. That's what the media been screeching about for over a year. Now it is saying USA is deciding their foreign policy?
The US has no buisness in expressing a term of peace to a conflict they are not a party too, the only explination for this, and its supported by the past actions of The United States, is that it is dictating forign policy to Ukraine
You mean that separatist regions that got installed by Russia and would already have lost without the Russian troops intervention in 2014 - 2015? That regions that have a government of brutal former criminals (that brutally oppressed every opposition)? Yes those too. If the people really want to be part of Russia, they can ask for a fair referendum with international observers after Russia fucked off.
Let's take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
And we can see a few interesting facts about Crimea in a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
that's some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that. if these people don't like living in Ukraine, they can leave. That doesn't excuse Russia for invading another sovereign nation, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself.
it reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
that’s some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that...
Lol, and I'm sure you were out there protesting just as much when the US illegally invaded Iraq, Afghanstan, bombed Libya, sanctioned Iran, overthrew the governments of practically half of Latin America, installed Suharto in Indonesia, and committed dozens of other crimes around the world.
The only people doing mental gymnastics here are the ones who genuinely believe that the west is helping Ukraine defend itself as opposed to destroying Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia. You are all going to have a lot of soul searching to do at the end of all this.
"i know you are but what am I?" is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.
believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.
The west is not helping Ukraine, and the fact that people in the west continue to pretend that's the case if absolutely sickening. And you've demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are far more foolish than me.
so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it's pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.
so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?
The west is helping exactly the same way the west helped Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and countless other countries that were destroyed as a result of western interventions. One has to have a brain as smooth as a bowling ball to think that west gets involved in these conflicts due to some altruistic purposes.
Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of making a clown of yourself in public. It's frankly embarrassing.
Who said anything about altruism? All sides are motivated by self interest. Ukrainians want to kill Russian soldiers on their soil, and the US wants other people to kill Russian soldiers on foreign soil.
They cooperate because their interests align, even if Ukrainians have a more justified motivation.
Ah, so you're finally admitting that what we're seeing is a proxy war between the regime US installed in Ukraine after a coup in 2014 and Russia. We're finally getting somewhere.
First the difference is that in the Great Patrotic War the US was a party to the war, as of right now the US is not a party to the war and fighting through someone else
Second, how exactly did Russia instigate the war, when it was Ukraine not Russia who violated the Minsk Accords?
The US was not at war until the end of 1941, so by your definition Operation Barbarossa was part of a proxy war between the US and Germany.
Russia instigated the war by sending hostile troops into Ukraine, which is an act of war. Violating a treaty is not an act of war. If it were, the US would now be at war with Russia after they violated the New START treaty.
First treaty violations have different outcomes, tye new START treaty was a renegotation and surplanted the previous one, a treaty that said "Hey maybe dont shell donotesk and luhonsk" that was violated and attempt to peacefully remind Ukraine of their treaty obligations for 8 years calls for a little more
Regardless of what the treaty said, a violation cannot justify war. Sovereign nations have the right to enter and leave treaties as they see fit. That's what sovereign means: complete authority over what takes place within its borders.
When a sovereign nation will not abide by any treaties, the ultimate consequence is international isolation not invasion.
You are correct but because this acted as a defacto peace agreement, Ukraine Violating it is tantimount to breaking the peace, that is what happens when you break a peace treaty. Actions have consiquinces.
It was a peace agreement to end fighting within Ukrainian territory, just as the Good Friday Agreement ended fighting within Northern Ireland.
Breaking either treaty might restart internal fighting, but it would not justify invasion of Ukraine by Russia (just as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would not justify invasion of the UK).
It does when by breaking the treaty there is a reforendom 2 nations break away (DPR and LPR) and then request assistance from an ally to the east.
It would be the same as if northern ireland voted to become part of ireland, the UK said no and started to attack it, Ireland would be well within its rights to enter and protect nothern ireland
No, they would not. Northern Ireland is the sovereign territory of the UK. It does not matter if NI rebels "request assistance", this does not justify an invasion.
If that were not the case, then the rebels who are now in Belgorod could justify a NATO invasion simply by "requesting assistance".
At the time of the request first the DPR abd LPR had declared independence
Second and most importantly regardless of what the UK wants to do barring a renegotiation of the good friday accords, Northern Ireland at any time can vote to change between the 2 nations and is in a limbo, but is currently administred as a part wholy ubder UK law, because the treaty is bilateral tye UK cannot just leave, it was one of the biggest road blocks to brexit.
If treaties worked the way you think they did they would be worth less than just words on a paper, because they would all be lies and no nation would be able to trust any other
NI has the option to leave the UK only because they were given that option by the UK under the GFA. The Minsk Agreement does not contain any such provision. Hence any declaration of independence by the DPR and LPR is meaningless, just like the declaration of independence by the Confederate States of America or any potential declaration of independence by Belgorod Oblast.
Treaties work exactly as I described, the UK even considered reneging on the GFA as part of Brexit. Nevertheless they are not worthless, because a country that does not honor its treaties will find itself diplomatically isolated, unable to form trade agreements, etc. No country wants to end up like North Korea.
except it's not-- each of those instances are very different, as is this. You can't even accuse any one nation and have to use the nebulous "the west" because your argument isn't even political, it's ideological-- you just hate that anyone is opposing Russia's imperialism, and you're blaming the victim, using every logical fallacy, including personal insult, you can since you have no rational argument to make.
your position is transparent, angry, and you have nothing but nonsense to spew in defense of bullying and disinformation.
edit:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
The motivations of the west were exactly the same in each of those instances, and one has to work really hard to not understand what these motivations actually are.
Also, please stop projecting. The only one here who's angry and spewing nonsense here is you. I've provided actual sources and detailed explanations for my position. All you've done was regurgitate propaganda drivel.
Also, whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by pseudo intellectuals to create a double standard for their own actions and those of others. Can't wait to see what you're going to spew here next.
The motivations of the west were exactly the same in each of those instances, and one has to work really hard to not understand what these motivations actually are.
Just because others don't agree with your imaginings (and laughably ignorant assessment) doesn't mean we have to work hard. Acknowledging reality, in fact, requires very little "work".
Also, please stop projecting. The only one here who’s angry and spewing nonsense here is you.
Criticizing you isn't "protection" nor is pointing out the obviousness of your biases. and I already pointed out how childish the whole "I know you are but what I am?" thing is, but if you want to keep up with that, that's on you.
I’ve provided actual sources and detailed explanations for my position. All you’ve done was regurgitate propaganda drivel.
posting a bunch of pictures of where ethnic Russians live doesn't magically make an illegal invasion legal. THAT is, as you say "propaganda drivel", but that's for playing, lmao
Also, whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by pseudo intellectuals to create a double standard for their own actions and those of others
well, at least you admit what you've done wrong. but will you stop? i doubt you'll do more that try to blame me for your actions while claiming to be a victim...
Just because others don’t agree with your imaginings (and laughably ignorant assessment) doesn’t mean we have to work hard. Acknowledging reality, in fact, requires very little “work”.
I think you've established pretty firmly your inability to acknowledge reality here.
Criticizing you isn’t “protection” nor is pointing out the obviousness of your biases. and I already pointed out how childish the whole “I know you are but what I am?” thing is, but if you want to keep up with that, that’s on you.
You're not criticizing anything, you keep regurgitating nonsense here confidently and ignoring actual facts presented to you. Couldn't even be bothered to read the the study your own regime put out.
posting a bunch of pictures of where ethnic Russians live doesn’t magically make an illegal invasion legal. THAT is, as you say “propaganda drivel”, but that’s for playing, lmao
LMAO children are capable of higher level of discourse than this.
well, at least you admit what you’ve done wrong. but will you stop? i doubt you’ll do more that try to blame me for your actions while claiming to be a victim…
I guess having poor reading comprehension explains a lot about your comments.
I think you’ve established pretty firmly your inability to acknowledge reality here.
there's that childish "I know you are put what am I?" thing again.
You’re not criticizing anything,
now who's denying reality? lol
you keep regurgitating nonsense here confidently and ignoring actual facts presented to you. Couldn’t even be bothered to read the the study your own regime put out.
weren't you just accusing me of projection? and it's always fascinating to me when people on the internet claim to be psychic. i did read it-- it's simply, as I've said, dubious as an objection since it's irrelevant and also reveals your obvious bias. You clearly don't like that someone's standing up to Russia's imperialistic bullying, so you blame the victim and anyone who helps them stand up to the bully. just because the US may also benefit in other ways is irrelevant, and nothing you've said can prove otherwise.
You can whine and moan all you like, but that's all it is: whining and moaning because Russia's bullying is meeting forceful opposition and they're looking like fools as a result.
just because some Russians happen to live in Ukraine doesn't make it ok for Russia to invade, and the fact that you would make such an absurd argument just shows that not only are you incapable of making a rational argument, you're clearly not willing to listen to one. That's backed up by your incessant use of an arsenal of logical fallacies from false equivalence, red herrings, whataboutisms, to ad hominem personal attacks and the constant moving of the goalposts.
Since I can't reason you out of the position you didn't reason yourself into, I don't see the point of continuing this conversation.
there’s that childish “I know you are put what am I?” thing again.
Oh look more projection
now who’s denying reality? lol
I see you're confusing name calling with making actual criticisms. You haven't addressed a single point I made. Yet, here you are projecting and posturing again.
You can whine and moan all you like, but that’s all it is: whining and moaning because Russia’s bullying is meeting forceful opposition and they’re looking like fools as a result.
Only one moaning here is you bud. I love how you can't actually make a coherent argument and just use name calling instead like the child that you are.
just because some Russians happen to live in Ukraine doesn’t make it ok for Russia to invade
Nice straw man, nobody made this argument here. The fact that you're using this straw man clearly demonstrates that it is in fact you who are incapable of making a rational argument.
Since I can’t reason you out of the position you didn’t reason yourself into, I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation.
Oh thank goodness, I thought you'd never stop regurgitating nonsense here.
there's that "i know you ae but what am I?" thing again...
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
Thanks for further confirming that you struggle with basic logical propositions. Comedians can be clever, but that does not imply that all comedians are clever. Again, a small child would be able to understand this, but you evidently aren't. And that's what makes you a joke.
there’s that “i know you ae but what am I?” thing again…
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
just more gaslighting. with proof. why do you lie so much? is it for attention? is that why you have to have conversations with chatGPT? lol
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
Except I didn't lie about anything here. I stated plain facts that I backed up with sources, and detailed explanations. You on the other hand, tried to psychoanalyze me, tell me what I think, and failed to make any actual points or address anything I said.
Then you deny that and continue trolling here for over an hour. Your comment history literally matches what you so conveniently quoted:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
It's pretty clear that being the narcissist that you are, you're going to need to have the last word. So, I'm going to stop here. Enjoy your dopamine rush from having the last say.
still going with that "i know you are but what am I?" thing, huh?
just look how mad you are that I don't buy your obvious lies. lol
this whole conversation has just been you going all of these:
5 Ways Narcissists Project and Attack You mixed with, like, tons of local fallacies and repeating things I've already said to you, thinking you're clever-- another narcissistic trait.
I'm excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don't support Serbia in the slightest.
I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there's no way that could be possible.
If people in Kosovo actually want to join Albania then they should be able to. Last I checked though, there are plenty of Serbs living there who recently clashed with NATO troops. You want to remind me why that happened?
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
Whataboutism is a form of a tu quoque logical fallacy used to justify having double standards for one's own behavior and that of others. Anybody using this term unironically can be safely dismissed.
only by hypocrites evading the very behavior they wish not to be criticized for. you confess in your attempt at criticism, not only to your bad faith arguments, but to your own hypocrisy and inability to process criticism.
Although narcissists don't, or won't, show it, all perceived criticism feels gravely threatening to them—the reason that their inflamed, over-the-top reactions to it can leave us so surprised and confused. Deep down, clinging desperately not simply to a positive but grandiose sense of self, they're compelled at all costs to block out any negative feedback about themselves. Their dilemma is that the rigidity of their defenses, their inability ever to let their guard down, guarantees that they'll never get what they most need, which they themselves are sadly oblivious of.
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
Just to break it down, all I did was point out that you used a logical fallacy as a form of argument. In response, you started babbling about victimhood, narcissism, lies, and bullying. You are in that DARVO picture buddy, and it's not a good look. What you're doiing here is trolling and gaslighting. It's very transparent. You have no points to make, you're not able to formulate a sound argument, and all you do is just copy/paste the same drivel over and over adding nothing but noise to this thread. Go outside and touch grass.
If you are dealing with a narcissist in your life or grew up with a narcissistic parent, you may have experienced “gaslighting.” It is a form of verbal and psychological abuse that is insidiously cruel, with the intention of making a person doubt their own sanity. It destabilizes you and can make you wonder about your own memory or perception of reality.
True narcissists are not accountable for their own bad behavior. It is common for them to blame others and make it someone else’s fault. They use denial, accusation, misdirection, and lying to throw you off base. You can walk away wondering if it is just your imagination, or if you are sorely mistaken, and it is truly your fault. Here are some examples of how gaslighting can play out in relationships:
Claire used manipulative gaslighting on her brother, Jack. She was jealous of Jack, and when she would go to his house, she would steal things from him. She then proudly displayed those things in her own home. When Jack would visit and see the stolen goods, he would say, “Hey, Claire, that’s mine!” Claire then would follow up by telling Jack that he had given these items to her, and he must have just forgotten. Jack told me he usually caved and chalked it up to his own lapse of memory.
A young woman wrote to me about her narcissistic ex-husband. He had not paid the light bill when they were married. He came home to find her and the children sitting in the dark with candles. She showed him the delinquent bill, and he yelled, “I paid that bill. Are you going to believe your eyes or me?” As they stood there in the dark.
We see gaslighting happen when a spouse decides to cheat and attempts to conceal the infidelity. When confronted, it is common for them to accuse their spouse of being crazy, jealous, or insecure. I’ve talked to many men and women betrayed by partners who say that for quite some time, they actually thought they were just losing their minds and being unreasonable. They look back after finding out the truth and wonder how someone could manipulate them with such conviction and forceful intent.
Brenda was in therapy discussing her narcissistic mother. When she confronted her mother about childhood issues, the mother’s reaction was to say “You are too sensitive”; “That did not happen”; “It’s just your imagination!” Brenda then recoiled in self-doubt and wondered if she had just made up her reality. She was left with the feeling that she did not matter.
Many adult children of narcissistic parents attempt to eventually confront their parents about their childhoods. This usually does not go well with a narcissist, and I don’t encourage it. What usually happens is that the narcissistic parent denies the reality, calls their child a liar, or just says they don’t remember it that way at all. This results in the adult child feeling more angst, disappointment, and pain. It leaves them with one more experience of not having their feelings validated or acknowledged, and they walk away once again feeling loss and a lack of authenticity. One client sadly joked with me, saying, “My parents say, 'Come on home and visit; we will leave the gaslight on for you!'”
Gaslighting is emotionally abusive and ultimately gives the abuser more power to dominate a relationship. It can happen gradually, so the victim goes from just thinking they misread a situation to really believing they must be going crazy. This can cause long-term damage to a person’s mental health, resulting in mistrust toward others in general, and can even interfere with their ability to form healthy relationships in the future.
If you think you are a victim of gaslighting, here are five suggestions:
Keep a journal, and write down narratives of what you experience and feel.
Talk through experiences with a trusted friend or therapist.
Practice trusting your own feelings and intuition.
Learn to set boundaries, and stop abusive comments on the spot.
Practice giving the situation of gaslighting some time. Think it through before doubting yourself.
We can all have different perceptions of experiences in life. We can disagree with others about our perceptions. This is not gaslighting. Remember that gaslighting is used purposefully to benefit the person doing it and to hurt you. The term gaslighting originated from a 1938 stage play, Gas Light. According to Wikipedia, the story is about a husband who “attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes.”
Gaslighting is psychologically and emotionally abusive. If it is happening to you, find a way to get help, and remove yourself from the situation.
still sticking with that "I know you are but what am I" thing, I see. obvious, since you have no rational argument. probably why you use keep repeating what I've said hours ago.
The are several interpretations of what I said. Yours among them. But I am now confirming, for the second time, that I did not mean what you think I meant.
Two other valid interpretations, which I did intend, include: (1) that the US and it's executives and diplomats are warmongers; and (2) that Ukrainian demands are for the Ukrainians alone to determine.
The war is now an historical fact. Who started it is a significant issue but is neither here nor there for the point that I'm making. I'll elaborate on that point so as to put a stop to the evident confusion.
Peace will not be reached for so long as the US seeks profits in (a) selling weapons and (b) the reconstruction of Ukraine. The longer the war and the more destruction it causes, the more profit in it for the US.
The US is interested in Ukraine only insofar as it reaps these profits. I say nothing of ordinary Americans, who are likely genuinely and rightly appalled at the war and hope for the US to end it. Unfortunately, if they hope for this, they do not know their government nor it's financial interests. That is tragic, because if they did know, they might better help to end this war and many others.
The true ends of those decision makers (in the US and in Europe, too) are clear in statements like those in the linked article. If peace was the aim, the US would not be making demands that it knows Russia will never agree to. Are Russia's demands acceptable? It's again beside the point.
The question is, what is the quickest way to end the war? The answer to that question will reveal the steps that must be taken. I struggle to see how inflammatory warmongering statements from a known warmonger state could ever be part of that answer or those steps.
it's irrelevant who you blame because your argument is a strawman and tu quoque logical fallacy.
Russia, and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine, as they are the ones who invaded and refuse to leave. The war will end only when they leave, regardless of how much you try to deflect blame onto anyone else.
edit: and the fact that you call the US a "warmonger" simply for helping Ukraine defend itself reminds me of this:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
At least we agree that I didn't say what I didn't say.
I'm calling the US a warmonger because it's been a warmonger for it's brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it's interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
No amount of 'just war' will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history
now you're just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren't necessarily factual, you're just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing here-- and is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don't like the US, and you'll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.
Your argument is no based in facts, it's based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.
Classic liberal - "history doesn't matter, the only things that matter are within the contextual boundaries I draw that support my assertions. No, you're the fallacy!"
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong"
At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.
i never agreed to that
Why are you insisting that I meant what I have said I did not mean? I understand that your interpretation of what I said is one valid interpretation. But I am confirming again that it is not the intended meaning of my words.
I called the US a warmonger. You replied:
and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself …
I confirmed:
I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history.
You responded:
now you’re just changing your argument again moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.
But I haven't changed what I said. There was a misunderstanding and I clarified what I meant. I'll do so again. My point—the same as it was in my first comment—is that the US is a warmonger. It is a warmonger because it is constantly starting and prosecuting wars. The goalposts are exactly where I left them.
I wrote:
Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.
To which you replied:
so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual
This is a misunderstanding. The words 'even if' are conditional. They mean, in case I am wrong about US motivations in this war, the US is still a warmonger for all the other wars it has caused and prosecuted. So I can be wrong about this war and still right about the generalisation. This is the same point, to reiterate, that I have made from the beginning.
you have a grudge about what the US did in the past
The US and it's allies killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. In my lifetime. Why should I not be bitter and angry at such a crime? At the lack of justice? The people responsible are still free and there have been no apologies. What I have is an accurate description of the US: warmonger.
Yes, I will continue to say this. Until the day the US apologises and finds a way to make reparations. And not just for Iraq but for all the other places it has destroyed in it's lust for profit. Because until that day, I will refuse to believe that the US has changed it's ways. And if it has not changed it's ways, then it remains what it has always been: a warmonger.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] "Whataboutism" is one particularly well-known modern instance of this technique.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges.
you don't have an argument, you just have a bunch of logical fallacies, disinformation, and childish indignation.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Do liberals feel some kind of indescribable euphoria from taking what they believe to be the moral high ground? They're always on their high horse, must be a side-effect of the brain rot.
It's such an important topic but a conversation can't go anywhere if the two speakers are talking about different things and can't agree on what the topic is.
The US has been encircling Russia and China for decades with nuclear weapons and nuclear first strike capabilities. The idea that Russia just up and invaded Ukraine for no reason is a Western liberal construction that requires memoryholing the last 25 years of US/NATO aggression, expansion, and nuclear development.
Agreed. This situation is far more complicated than the western mainstream media wants to convince people it is. This wasn't a conflict that was born at the outset of war. There's a reason why there's 'zero' mention of things like the Minsk Accords or any considerations given to Eurasian security arrangements. Here's an excellent primer on the background involved. I'm not at all trying to say what Russia did was justified, but they've got far more of a moral plateau to stand on than the US does.
Dude, do you honestly think Putin is trying to militarily annihilate Ukraine? Especially when he considers Russians and Ukrainians to share the same cultural lineage and history. He made numerous overtures to try and 'avoid' a conflict from breaking out. Why was the west so adamantly against laying the framework for a security arrangement that made sense for all the parties involved?
He made numerous overtures to try and ‘avoid’ a conflict from breaking out.
Putin: "If you allow this country to have protection from me invading it, I'm going to invade it."
U.S.: "Yeah... we're going to consider allowing them protection from you."
Putin: "Oh no... somebody stop me from invading this other country...! Here I go, I'm gonna invaaaade..."
U.S.: "Okay." [Putin invades Ukraine, begins murdering Ukrainians]
U.S., months later: "Alright that's enough, we're going to help these Ukranians to keep you from murdering them."
Putin and his sheep: "tHe U.S. iS wArMoNgErInG!!!1!!"
I honestly don't give a shit. Russia is the aggressor who invaded and massacred untold Ukrainians along the way. They now should be opposed and driven back until they come to their senses and leave, or are beaten into the dust so that they can no longer pose a threat.
If you want to debate the entire history of the region, take it to someone who does give a shit.
Quick question, how can Russia be the agressor, when they were not the party to break the previous treaty? How could Russia be the agressor when they only entered after their allies, the LPR and DPR, newly formed after a vote of the people due to the violation of the aformentioned Minsk Accords, asked for help from their ally. Russia never took the first step, and its quite hard to be the agressor when, you where not the one agressing
Non-binding treaties negotiated under duress that all fell apart the moment the ink was put to paper, through which Russia tried to control Ukrainian internal affairs?
Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it's not.
What's wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?
And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?
What's wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what's actually happening.
Ironically, the west's most looked to academic expert on Russian Studies would completely disagree with you. He warned that you would see the argument being pitched that NATO remains justified today, to "manage the security threats provoked by its own existence." Even 'US policymakers' advised that continued NATO encroachment would result in a military provocation in Ukraine. Who ignored their advice? The American foreign policy establishment. But I'm sure 'nobody' ever saw that coming, right? You know who else made similar observations? George Kennan, who was the architect of America's containment policy during the Cold War.
And you didn't even carefully read the reply you commented to. He didn't say the US was responsible for the Russian army rolling into Ukraine. He said the US is responsible for engineering the conditions for a proxy war to take place.
There's nothing to lie about. What we're seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.
The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.
NATO, the world's first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.
Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.
It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.
And yet he has no idea.
Let's look at a couple of instances to contrast the media coverage, and see who's really 'lying'. Take something most Americans are familiar with; the assassinations of Nemtsov and Litvinenko. There's a major between the way the west reported the accounts of their deaths, and how the Russians did it. Their deaths represented a major giveaway to the west, because they were two key opportunities that were quickly seized upon as a chance to demonize Putin (whatever your opinion of him is). Nemtsov was the leader of the Russian opposition. He was deputy prime minister under Yeltsin and was held in favorable regard by Thatcher. He met Obama in 2009. Supported Ukraine’s western orientation to Europe, etc. Made sense why the west liked him so much. There were people who thought it was a false-flag operation since Putin had nothing to gain, but the west stood to gain a great deal out of it.
When the Russian investigation got involved in his death, they brought in a number of suspects who’s would be connections to the murder investigators were unclear. There was speculation it was retaliatory for anti-Islamic remarks he made, but even they concluded at the time that those links were tenuous and there wasn’t much to convict them on. The west played up Putin’s connections to the murder based on previously dated murders that were frequently attributed (with ‘greatly’ varying degrees of evidence) to Russian state agencies. Those people included people like Sergei Yushenkov, Forbes Russian editor Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, etc. There were more people involved, and ‘many’ of them had directly received funding from the US State Department backed National Endowment for Democracy, ‘or' by an NGO that was funded by the NED.
Poroshenko claimed Nemtsov was going to reveal evidence of direct Russian support for the uprising that happened in Eastern Ukraine. For others, Nemtsov was targeted either for his symbolic importance or his useful indispensability. Rivals like Alexei Navalny co-founded the ‘Democratic Alternative (DA!) platform and he was the vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party Yabloko. DA!’s leader Mariya Gaydar also got funding from the NED and worked with people like Ilya Yashin in the People’s Freedom Party (which is ‘also’ NED funded). Yashin was close to a guy named Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was a member of NED funded Washington based ‘World Movement for Democracy’. He was a leading member of the Strategy 31 campaign for free assembly (whose ranks were filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED funded NGO’s). And their activities had spread into Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.
NED was involved in expunging itself from public documents. Russian intelligence had identified a network of rebellious organizations that were funded in part by the US State Department along the lines of previous color revolutions, that were readying for a Moscow coup. Gorbachev thought the killing would be a provocation of some kind to complicate or destabilize the regime. There was speculation among ’some’ Western commentators like David North that thought if the US was planning a coup that would replace Putin with a leader who was more open to the West. He gave 2 examples. First was either Nemtsov was killed by elements within the Putin faction as a warning to Western backed opposition or, he was killed by members of the anti-Putin faction who considered Nemtsov too cautious which would be an impediment to regime change.
The media played this up and cast as much suspicion as they could on Putin. But oddly, the West was dead silent about a string of mysterious opposition deaths that happened in Ukraine also, at this 'exact' same time (some of these happened the same day of Nemtsov’s death). Mykhailo Chechetov who was a key ally of President Yanukovych (member of opposition party Party Regional, “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev). Nikolai Sergienko, deputy chief of Ukrainian Railways (supporter of Yanukovych). Alexey Kolesnik (hung himself). Stanislav Melnik (opposition party, shot himself). Sergey Valter (mayor of Melitopol, hung himself a few hours before his trial). Alexander Bordiuga (deputy direction of Melitopol police was found dead in his garage). Alexander Peklushenko (former member of Ukrainian parliament and former mayor of Zaporizhi was found shot to death). Sergey Melnichuk (prosecutor in Odessa, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor). Yanukovych’s own son (“fell” through ice of Lake Baikal in Russia). Oleg Kalashnikov (another prominent politician, died of a gunshot wound). Oles Buzina (historian and journalist, shot dead). Serhiy Sukhobok (journalist, shot dead). Olga Moron (editor in chief of Neteshinskiy Vestnik was found dead in her home, her body showed signs of a violent struggle). These all happened from January through April.
2 people who were involved in the murder of Oles Buzina were charged and were said to be Neo-Nazi paramilitary militants. One of them got released on bail, paid for by Oleksiy Tamrazov, the owner of Media Group conglomerate and was a major oil and gas tycoon. But with Nemtsov, there were controversies that spilled over into many different allegations and counter-allegations that was spun into a story about differences in degrees of press freedom between Russia and Ukraine and the riskiness of journalism. After the elections happened in 2015 in Donbass, Ukraine banned 34 foreign journalists and 7 bloggers from entering the country. They were part of a larger group close to about 400 people across 100 organizations who were forbidden from entertaining on the grounds of “national security” concerns.
The MSM claims over here about the dangers of doing journalism in Russia and the official assassinations of journalists are hyper exaggerated. There was a study that statistically showed that Russia had 2x the number of newspaper journalists as the US, despite having 1/2 the population and when you adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists were shown to be safer than any number of ‘democratic’ countries that were friendly to the US (and that includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Fedia Kruikov found that 1/2 of the killings of Russian journalists that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) attributed to professional activities were either “wholly” or “partially” falsified. Many of them were killed for reasons that had nothing to do with the administration.
In 2006, Linvinenko was a close associate of Boris Berezovsky. The British account of his death was ‘very’ flawed if you go deep into digging into it. The former lawyer Alexander Mercouris and someone else claimed that the inquiry Chair, Sir Robert Owen confused his role with that of a criminal judge who pronounced not only the cause of death but also accusing two supposed perpetrators (Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Ovum). He claimed that they had connections with the FSB and said the murder was “probably ordered” by Putin (when there was ‘zero’ factual evidence presented). He allowed no cross-examination and also no jury. A key witness refused to attend and the defendants weren’t present. They couldn’t be extradited because that goes against the Russian constitution. So the evidence that went against them was left unchallenged. Another claim was that The Chair reached outside the courtroom for evidence that suited his prejudices and his evidentiary standards varied between witnesses.
The report suggested Russian non-cooperation with the British, but Mercouris chronicled Britain’s refusal to cooperate with Russia. They rejected the suggestion that the inquiry take place in Russia. They didn’t allow Russian investigators access to Berezovsky. They refused to share their evidence of polonium poisoning. The case for Russian involvement was even undermined by the inquiry. Expert testimony demonstrated that polonium was widely available from many different sources, not just Russia. It wasn’t expensive as anyone thought. Evidence that Lugovoi (who had actually been a KGB agent) or Kovtun were FSB agents was circumstantial at best, in addition to the FSB motive behind it. The judge unreasonably showed credit to Litvinenko’s allegations against Putin and sided with Berezovsky who (with the assistance of Bell Potting promoted the narrative of Putin’s responsibility). He attached a ‘lot’ of weight to Litvinenko’s deathbed statement, even though there was reason to suspect it was written by Litvinenko’s colleague who was an ally of Berezovsky. Litvinenko himself had actually accused an entirely different party, Mario Scaramella of poisoning him. And there were other suspects involved who had motive for wanting to see Litvinenko dead. There was awitness who testified that he was blackmailing certain parties, and that their motives were more compelling than any attributable to the FSB
Yeah, no. The people that say crap like this, and uncritically swallow down the propaganda, always fail to take geopolitics seriously. In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia. Twice. If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do? If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be? Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia.
Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their "own" accord.
The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman's ego and paranoia.
If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do?
....stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There's like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.
If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be?
It's nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn't a choice. Likewise, it's nice you apparently don't get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn't allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.
Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.
They've invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I'll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.
That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.
Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.
It's really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they're doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they're actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don't care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.
I'm confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what's best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don't know what's best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn't it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn't support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
I personally don't think it's going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it's a tragedy that they're fighting or dying over whether it's Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
To me it's still hilarious that Americans themselves don't think the government has a cynical, vested interest for getting involved in Ukraine. How the hell so many average liberals became hawks that dance to the neocon war drum, is still puzzling to me. Especially when it was their own side that produced the overwhelming evidence of American Foreign Policy that stands confronting people.
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don't you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren't so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there's WMD's, it doesn't matter.
The US is against 'any' attempt by any country to use its resources for its own purposes. America behaves like any other imperial power has, throughout history. If Russia or China had the power the US currently does, they'd be doing the same thing. It's why 'Empire' as a concept can coexist just as easily with 'democracy' as a framework as it does in autocracies. Because every State out there wants to maximize it's share of power in the world. And this includes the US. That's why fundamentally things don't change all that much, regardless of who gets into power.
The people of Ukraine have told the world what their best interest is: removing Russian soldiers from their land, by force if necessary.
The US is only interested in Ukraine when their goals align. Everyone knows this, including most Americans and most Ukrainians.
However, it turns out that US and Ukrainian goals do, in fact, align. The US isn't "using" Ukraine any more than Ukraine is "using" the US. They are openly cooperating to achieve a common interest.
The Ukrainian people are being kidnapped off the street and sent to die by the regime US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing a democratically elected government. Most Ukrainians don't want to have a war and have their lives destroyed. The only people who want this war are ghouls living in the west who aren't personally affected by it.
Tankies can always be counted on to project the worst in themselves.
There are hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia and Kazakhstan who can explain which side is kidnapping young men off the street and sending them to die for a war they care nothing about. Meanwhile, opinion polls of Ukrainians consistently show that an overwhelming majority want to continue the war until Russians are defeated.
We have plenty of video evidence of this happening in Ukraine, but whatever you say my little dronie. And yeah, opinion polls mean so much in a country that's now effectively a military dictatorship.
Nah, I prefer to stop countries from annexing pieces of other countries.
The US hasn't annexed anything since 1959, and I was born too late to stop that. But Russia can't help itself, and even gives youngsters a chance to oppose annexation.
Maybe you should figure out how to stop your own regime from invading countries before playing world police then. US is literally occupying part of Syria as we speak. Just how ignorant are you exactly?
Oh I'm sorry, your shithole country is only occupying Syria without having officially incorporated the regions you're pillaging. That makes it totally different. 🤡
During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul'chyts'kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, and ultimately this specific article takes the view that the low harvest was caused by collectivization (he factors in the natural causes of the famine in later articles, based on how he completely neglects to mention weather in this article at all its clear that his position shifted over the years). However, the fact is that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
On the other hand, we can look at what an actual intentional genocide looks like where Europeans massacred so many indigenous people in North America that it changed the climate!
It wasn't, and if you think US is winning anything here then you're completely delusional. Life is going to get really hard for you in the coming years.
This has been a major reality check for me personally. For years I shook my head at the gargantuan US military budget thinking it's ridiculous. Fast forward to February 2022 and I realize it's the US once again cleaning up when Europe shits the bed. Ashamed, thankful and thoroughly convinced we need to spend a whole lot more in defense as well.
Idk about all that. The US has supported Ukraine and I support that. But Europe has stepped up to the plate too. While US refused to provide long range HIMARS, UK provided Storm Shadow. Poland has donated about all it has. Realistically, the US could drastically reduce it's defense spending, provide all the support Ukraine could want, and still maintain the largest military force by a large margin.
Well that's what I'm saying. European countries are giving all they've got to give while the US hardly breaks a sweat, yet the US provides a disproportionately large amount compared to the rest. Europe would be in a lot more trouble without the US, once again.
And I agree the UK deserves a lot of credit for pushing the envelope with tanks and long range and being the security provider for Sweden and Finland during the application process.
"Over" with Putin having gotten what he wants after killing millions of Ukrainians and still occupying their land. So no, fuck Putin and fuck anyone who supports his insane bloody quest for glory.
The only question is how many people are going to die in the process. Fuck anybody who supports continuation of this war. All the west is doing is prolonging the suffering. In the end this will end the same way as every other noble adventure the west was involved in. It's absolutely incredible to see that people are utterly incapable of learning from prior experience.
(edit) - Wow it's only been like 24 hours since I've been on Lemmy and I've been in arguments with and been down voted by tankies and fascist supporters.
There were plenty of people back in the day that said the U.S. should stay out of Europe and the Pacific. That we should just let the Nazis and Japan do what they pleased. Those people were either cowards or traitors.
In the end, it's clear one country is the aggressor and must be stopped before they wipe out the other. Your argument boils down to "nah, fuck them Ukranians, let them die because Putin wants it". Nope.
It's Putin's war. He can end it when he likes by getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
I recommend reading this book produced by US military, it makes it pretty clear that allies played a minor role in WW2. USSR was who defeated the nazis:
Meanwhile, calling this Putin's war is an incredibly reductionist. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
::: spoiler 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
::: spoiler George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
::: spoiler Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
What's going to happen in the end is that US is going to stop funding the coup regime in Ukraine just like they stopped propping up their puppet regimes in Vietnam and Afghanistan. This is likely to happen soon because election season is coming up, and Biden isn't going to want to have this debacle hanging over him. At that point the war will be over. It's absolutely stunning to see that grown ass adults can't understand this.
Or, we'll bolster Ukraine's military until they kick the shit out of the pathetic remains of Russia, they'll rise up and kill Putin, and then struggle for the next few decades to get out of the dark ages that Putin sent them back into.
In the end I don't really give a shit what a tankie bot account has to say, so have a day.
I’m just parroting back the exact same thing people are saying to me, but from the other side. I didn’t start insinuating support for one side or the other in the war in Ukraine made someone a friend of people they don’t know.
I’m not a friend of fascists. I actively work against fascists and the far right in my local community.
Also that might be one of the least credible websites I have ever seen in my life. It’s not even a news website, it’s nominally dedicated to the “strange trumpet sounds heralding the Rapture that have been heard in the skies throughout the world”. If you’re going to spout off misinformation at least take the time to stand up a website that looks professional and claims to be some sort of human rights watchdog or something, because that bit of bottled schizophrenia is not it.
You literally just voiced support for literal fascists doing terrorism in Belgorod. And war crimes of Ukraine are well documented, even amnesty international acknowledges them. And of course, these include execution of POWs.
The military leaders who ordered troops to garrison in illegal areas should be arrested, charged, and tried in an impartial court.
Any Ukrainian soldiers who killed POWs should be arrested, charged, and tried in an impartial court.
War crimes are not ok, and have been committed by both sides. Any perpetrator of a war crime, regardless of allegiance, should be tried and appropriately punished if convicted.
Putin can end this war by pulling back his troops. I do not support the invasion of sovereign nations, just as I don’t support the violation of an individual’s sovereignty over themselves.
This will obviously not happen, so I don't know why people keep repeating this as if it has any meaning. The reality of the situation is that Russia will fight this war to the end, and all the west is doing is prolonging the war which results in increased death and suffering. The goal of prolonging the war is not to help Ukraine but to weaken Russia. This was the stated goal in the RAND study before the war, and was recently reiterated by none other than US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Finally, Ukraine lost sovereignty when the west ran a coup there in 2014 and installed a far right regime in place of a democratically elected government.
This will obviously not happen, so I don’t know why people keep repeating this as if it has any meaning.
Why does Ukraine bear all the responsibility in ending a war started by Russia?
Until the west starts holding itself accountable, it has no moral ground to judge others.
That’s rich, coming from someone who lives in the West. To be fair explicitly clear, I don’t agree with the lack of accountability in the west. I don’t agree with Bush’s foreign policy, I don’t agree with the expansion of drone strikes by Obama, I don’t agree with the Iranian assassination ordered by Trump, and I don’t agree with Biden’s use of drone strikes.
You seem to be under the impression that the sins of the US absolve Putin and his troops. It just makes them all terrible. I can see that we’ll never agree to anything here, so I’ll bring some clojure to it on my end at least and just stop responding. I can’t say I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but I’m appreciative of the opportunity to have had it.
Why does Ukraine bear all the responsibility in ending a war started by Russia?
This isn't about bearing responsibility, it's about dealing with the real world. Ukraine is not able to defeat Russia in this war. That's just a simple fact. Whatever the west is doing is not going to change the outcome. You don't have to take my word for it. This is literally what Obama stated back in 2016:
The US was involved in WWII from the beginning. They were just on the side of the Nazis. The State only intervened openly in the end to prevent the spread of communism. Then they made sure to rescue as many Nazis as possible and put them in positions of power in West Germany, the EU, and NATO, etc.
Since that war, the US has been doing 'what they pleased', exactly what the Nazis and what Japan would've done. To this day the US tortures, runs concentration camps, and brutally oppresses billions of people around the world.
Those who argued for the US to stay out were right then, and are still right today.
I have 2 quick questions 1 how can "Tankies" communists, Marxist Lenninists, The most anti-Facist folks you will ever meet facist supporters?
Second how exactly is this Putin's war, as far as I can tell it is Ukraine who violated the Minsk accords for years and that was the inciting incident for this whole thing, now if you could show me how I am wrong I am all ears, but I feel it is irresponsible to pin an entire war on the president of a nation, let alone the one who did not violate the previous agreement
you link to a massive report by - ahem - rand - a dubious source of its own, and don't even bother to explain your point or who this adds anything to back it up. more like you google your position and just linked the first thing that confirmed your bias. you've gone from comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan to moving the goalposts to just calling it a proxy war. your argument keeps falling apart and changing.
if you had an argument to make, you would, rather than relying on something you don't understand and can't explain to do it or you.
RAND represents the views of the neocons who run your country, and it outlines the exact scenario we're seeing unfold in Ukraine as a way for US to weaken Russia. It's absolutely incredible that Americans continue to believe that each time their country gets involved in a new war that this is going to be the one time you're on the right side of history.
I just love how you keep acting smug here while showing utter lack of understanding regarding the subject you're opining on. Maybe instead of telling me what I do or don't understand go read the report your deplorable regime wrote.
honestly, i can't see how any reasonable person wouldn't.
edit: russia has proven, repeatedly, that they don't honor their agreements. the only way that they won't invade again is if they're kicked out and if Ukraine has a modern military fully capable of kicking russia's ass if it tries again.
The US has proven, repeatedly, that they don't honor their agreements. The only way they won't invade again is if they are kicked out and if Russia has a modern military fully capable of kicking NATO's ass if it tries again.
if you're hearing screeching, look into the mirror for the source. and I'm no liberal-- but sure, just name-call anyone who disagrees with you since you have no other rational argument. like a children do.
Yup, that reading comprehension is really lacking on your part. I guess who has the time to learn to read when they spend it all making clown of themselves in public. I respect your life choices.
Add comment