Ukraine Forever

[Wilbur]

On 12/24/2022 at 2:37 PM, Wilbur said:

A bleak post-apocalyptic future for Russia:

 

Yikes.  Here is a news story that falls directly in line with this prediction of rising comebacks in Russia.

Eight Russian conscripts detained near Moscow after fleeing from Luhansk with weapons (yahoo.com)

[mormont]

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

See here is the thing Mormont (moderator). I don’t support the war and yet you accuse me of just that. 

And yet all along, you've been doing this to the rest of us.

None of us wanted this war. We're all conscious, too, that we're not fighting it. Ukrainians are. Pretty much everyone you're arguing with, has said that they respect the right of Ukrainians to set their own war goals. You, alone in this discussion, do not. You, who I understand are not fighting in the war or Ukrainian, insist that Ukrainians are wrong in this, and should instead settle for giving away part of their country in spite of the fact that this will not end the war. At best it will pause it.

Your preferred solution will cause death and suffering. You can argue about how much, if you like, but if you deny that it will cause death and suffering, you're just flat wrong. There's no path here that doesn't involve death and suffering.

My excuse for supporting the Ukrainians in their war aims is, it's for them, ultimately, to decide what those should be.

So: what's your excuse?

What's your excuse for being more worried about Ukrainian reprisals than Russian reprisals?

What's your excuse for insisting that Ukraine must give up territory seized by force for the sake of Russian stability?

What's your excuse for prioritising a dictator over an elected regime?

What is it?

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

The Russian goal was not to annex Donbas

The Russians have a very unusual way of NOT annexing a place.

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

No one said it is.

 

No, the false moral equivalency is comparing the Ukrainian seizure of Donetsk and Sevastopol to “liberation” of territory from Nazi territory.  

A comparison you keep making for some reason. International recognition has nothing to do with it. If we go by international recognition China would be liberating Taiwan and Serbia would be liberating Kosovo if they invaded tomorrow. 
 

Niether Crimea nor Donetsk/Luhansk cities have ever been controlled by this government newly assembled after EU and NATO diplomats helped create the new framework after the revolution.

You seem to think that it is wrong for Ukrainians to defend themselves.

Why?

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You seem to think that it is wrong for Ukrainians to defend themselves.

Why?

No no, you see he’s not saying that he’s just concerned that they’re defending themselves too well and that trying to get back all the people and land Russia has stolen would lead to misery.

If Ukraine just did a ceasefire/gave away the territory everything would puppies and candies in the places Russia has taken. Pay no mind to the fact a lot of the time  whenever Ukrainian gets back territory mass graves get found and we see a systematic rape. 

[butterweedstrover]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

And yet all along, you've been doing this to the rest of us.

None of us wanted this war. We're all conscious, too, that we're not fighting it. Ukrainians are. Pretty much everyone you're arguing with, has said that they respect the right of Ukrainians to set their own war goals. You, alone in this discussion, do not. You, who I understand are not fighting in the war or Ukrainian, insist that Ukrainians are wrong in this, and should instead settle for giving away part of their country in spite of the fact that this will not end the war. At best it will pause it.

Your preferred solution will cause death and suffering. You can argue about how much, if you like, but if you deny that it will cause death and suffering, you're just flat wrong. There's no path here that doesn't involve death and suffering.

My excuse for supporting the Ukrainians in their war aims is, it's for them, ultimately, to decide what those should be.

So: what's your excuse?

What's your excuse for being more worried about Ukrainian reprisals than Russian reprisals?

What's your excuse for insisting that Ukraine must give up territory seized by force for the sake of Russian stability?

What's your excuse for prioritising a dictator over an elected regime?

What is it?

I've said from the beginning that people who advocate violence are the one's who celebrate the collapse of the Russian government. The idea of civil war and the rising crime rate being well deserved karma has been my specific point of contention. 

But it's no wonder it exists when people are pushing for a total Ukrainian battleground victory without potential for negotiations. Ukrainians do not set their war aims, they react to existing realities. As long as they are supplied with the weaponry needed for a complete offensive they will reject the notion of compromise. As long as they feel protected they will act as brazenly as possible. 

These goals aren't set by them. Initially they were willing to negotiate neutrality, now there is a commitment from their end to militarily seize all of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Using such excuses as "it is for them to decide" assumes the current regime in Kiev is an ethical custodian of these regions. 

And yet they do not behave as their legal proprietor. They have not only bombed civilian centers and promised reprisal to any and all bureaucrats "colluding" with the Russians (that would be all of them) they cut off irrigation to the peninsula subjugating farmers to an artificial drought. 

Their only claim, international recognition, is not enough to warrant a military solution, because international recognition is flimsy at best. Serbia has international recognition of Kosovo. China has international recognition of Taiwan. Neither would be morally justified to retake either through force.    

My opinion does not "prioritize" a dictator over an elected regime, but you frame it that way to delegitimize any argument that is counter to full throttled support for the UAF's geopolitical aims. You frame the seizure of these territories as an epic battle between democracy and authoritarianism allowing your political fantasies to destabilize a nuanced situation. 

And as for the elected regime in Ukraine, the revolution was not done under the guise of an election, nor does the elected regime behaved based on democratic mandate. Zelensky was elected on a promise to concede some autonomy in Donbas and then once in power ignored any possible implementation of the Minsk agreement due to influence of certain militias. Militias influencing the diplomatic aspect of a government is not 'democratic' and it pokes a hole into your theory of who are fighting and for what. 

But as a moderator, I implore you to hold yourself to a higher standard and not throw baseless accusations around like someone who doesn't want to see the political collapse of the Russian state is "prioritizing dictatorship" or that they are in support of the war. 

Not only is that slander, but it also puts into question the level of misinformation that goes unchallenged in this thread: 

1. Yanukovych was responsible for shooting protestors in Maidan 

2. The Ukrainians ended their pursuit of negotiations after Bucha 

3. Retaking territory as part of international recognition is morally equivalent to "liberation". 

All three are false yet they are allowed to circulated among members without any criticism, just more chest beating from you and your compatriots demanding total victory.   

 

[butterweedstrover]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The Russians have a very unusual way of NOT annexing a place.

That's why they didn't annex it, funny right. Read the terms of the Minsk agreement, that legally binding piece of paper work Merkel is now saying was drafted as a ruse (an admission that is itself damning and possibly criminal). 

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

allowing your political fantasies to destabilize a nuanced situation. 

Um, it's Putin's authoritarian fantasies that did this.  You did notice he rolled an army into Ukraine with the publicly declared announcement made to the entire frackin' world that he was taking Ukraine back to Russia where she belonged because history history history.  

He also got the history wrong.  It all r belong to Mongolia.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

That's why they didn't annex it, funny right. 

Hilarious. 

Yet, I remember Putin giving a speech just a few months ago in which he did exactly that.  Did you miss that news?  Or does that not count for... reasons. 

[butterweedstrover]

Just now, Maithanet said:

Hilarious. 

Yet, I remember Putin giving a speech just a few months ago in which he did exactly that.  Did you miss that news?  Or does that not count for... reasons. 

Oh I don't know, his priorities changed once he realized neither Ukraine nor Germany/France had any intention of implementing the Minsk agreement.  

I don't know, that 8 year gap is suspicious, it's almost like his goal initially wasn't to annex the Donbas like I said in that post which you conveniently misread. 

[Padraig]

5 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Actually it does within the confines of a pro-Ukrainian source.

I fear you have read too much propaganda.  You expect both sides to be spewing hysterically unbalanced articles, so if the "Pro-Ukrainian" side isn't, then that's because they know they are in the wrong. 

Also, a lot of the board stuff you are complaining about never even happened here.  I was going to ask you to quote all these historical posts but you obviously can't, so no point.

It is going to be very difficult for you to find your way of this propaganda swamp.  Everything you read online will just further reinforce your position.  And then you'll come to a forum like this and wonder how people are so blind.

So my sympathies.  I'm not sure if you'll ever understand what is actually going on in Russia but hopefully some day...

[JGP]

13 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

But it's no wonder it exists when people are pushing for a total Ukrainian battleground victory without potential for negotiations. Ukrainians do not set their war aims, they react to existing realities. As long as they are supplied with the weaponry needed for a complete offensive that will reject the notion of compromise. As long as they feel protected they will act as brazen as possible. 

 

Who is pushing for what not what now? Putin himself said on state tv that the opportunity for negotiations and peace is there, if only the interested parties would undertake talks... lol 

Insofar as Ukrainian war aims, it was do the best they could to survive. Situation has changed some, but what are you suggesting here? That the international community would continue supplying Ukraine should they decide to continue into Russia itself? Ukraine has the obligation, and right, to defend themselves.

Maybe you got too much time on your hands. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I've said from the beginning that people who advocate violence are the one's who celebrate the collapse of the Russian government.

Wanting Fascist governments to be toppled can be good actually especially when the fascists in charge are trying to spread out their fascism to their neighbors.

 

[Maithanet]

So annexation is ok as long as you wait 8 years? 

I hope I have the discipline not to debate with you anymore because your arguments are garbage and clearly in bad faith.  Good day.  

[JGP]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Wanting Fascist governments to be toppled can be good actually especially when the fascists in charge are trying to spread out their fascism to their neighbors.

 

Indeed. 

I'm no one, but I'm hardline on Putin and similar ilk. Whatever going ons on the ground in Russia, and however unlikely, I do wish to see the collapse of the Russian state. More like something equally awful will eventually fill the void, or maybe, maybe, the Russian people can show the world their mettle. Who they really are, or want to be.   

[butterweedstrover]

 

2 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I fear you have read too much propaganda.  You expect both sides to be spewing hysterically unbalanced articles, so if the "Pro-Ukrainian" side isn't, then that's because they know they are in the wrong. 

Also, a lot of the board stuff you are complaining about never even happened here.  I was going to ask you to quote all these historical posts but you obviously can't, so no point.

It is going to be very difficult for you to find your way of this propaganda swamp.  Everything you read online will just further reinforce your position.  And then you'll come to a forum like this and wonder how people are so blind.

So my sympathies.  I'm not sure if you'll ever understand what is actually going on in Russia but hopefully some day...

You might want to look in the mirror. Or maybe read the articles I posted instead of lying: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html 

The Ukrainian government is covering up any investigation and the snipers were located on protestor controlled buildings. Controlled by the right sector, you know the fascist militia with advanced riot gear and weapons.  

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Wanting Fascist governments to be toppled can be good actually especially when the fascists in charge are trying to spread out their fascism to their neighbors.

 

Yeah, wanting the collapse of the Russian government will lead to civil war across the country between ethnic groups. The reason why nationalism never took hold in Russia isn't because it's not popular (Navalny is a nationalist) but because it's not an ideology that fits within the framework of the Russian Empire. Russian Imperialism is based on a multiethnic territorial claim under the control of Moscow. Nationalism would just fracture the country and lead to a political crisis.  

Both the monarchy (minority leadership of European blooded aristocrats), communism, and the current Oligarchy (made up of ethnic minorities) dissuaded nationalist leanings. Hoping for the destruction of Russian is just wanting bloodshed, and using the Ukraine situation to advocate for it is just taking a political fantasy and implementing it into the real world out of boredom with one's own life. 

Maybe if you were a Ukrainian who suffered a personal loss from the war I can sympathize with you on emotional level, but since you're not I imagine you are just exploring the situation to live out blood soaked fantasy of conquest and destruction.  

[butterweedstrover]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

So annexation is ok as long as you wait 8 years? 

I hope I have the discipline not to debate with you anymore because your arguments are garbage and clearly in bad faith.  Good day.  

I mean, don't you feel like maybe you're being unfair? Since I only said that Russia did not intend to annex the Donbas initially and you just casually shift the goal post to fit your own needs. 

But reading your comments, you obviously aren't very informed about the situation so you probably couldn't keep up in an actual debate. 

[Corvinus85]

Just now, JGP said:

Indeed. 

I'm no one, but I'm hardline on Putin and similar ilk. Whatever going on the ground in Russia, and however unlikely, I do wish to see the collapse of the Russian state. More like something more or less equally awful will eventually fill the void, or maybe, maybe, the Russian people can show the world their mettle. Who they really are, or want to be.   

I wish to see the end of Putin's regime, and hope that doesn't result in a massive civil war in Russia, because that would indeed be terrible. But Putin and his cronies turned the Russian Federation into a feudal state, and such states usually don't commit to massive political change without bloodshed. 

[Padraig]

2 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

You might want to look in the mirror. Or maybe read the articles I posted instead of lying: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html 

The Ukrainian government is covering up any investigation and the snipers were located on protestor controlled buildings. Controlled by the right sector, you know the fascist militia with advanced riot gear and weapons.  

Can you show me an actual quote from the article that says that?

I read the article earlier and it says the complete opposite.  Easy to prove me wrong with a quote.

[Arakasi]

Speaking of moderators I feel this is coming soon to a time of exercising another type of moderator powers otherwise this thread will be derailed forever.