After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
This is just far right bullshit. They made a peace deal and Nazi Ukraine immediate reneged on it as soon as Russia left Kiev. The ignorance here is astounding.
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Western leaders? Name them.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Because Russia attacked them.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
Pretending this just didn’t happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Yes, it was and there’s overwhelming evidence for it.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that’s showing any signs of being exhausted:
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN’s original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it’s definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.
A war with better armed Ukraine would be shorter.
We could make Russian dominance in the region history, just like the myth of their military competence is history.
The “west” is running out of stockpiled munitions at this point.
As Obama said, Russia will always have escalatory dominance in Ukraine. The Biden administration is just dragging out a loss.
After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
This is just far right bullshit. They made a peace deal and Nazi Ukraine immediate reneged on it as soon as Russia left Kiev. The ignorance here is astounding.
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Western leaders? Name them.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Because Russia attacked them.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
It’s not.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
Russian propaganda talking point.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Ah yes, Russian propaganda point as reported by CNN back in 2014 https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
There’s even an hour long documentary from France on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
Pretending this just didn’t happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, it was and there’s overwhelming evidence for it.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that’s showing any signs of being exhausted:
and here’s some recent mainstream media reporting on the state of the war for you to chew on
and here’s some analysis from military strategists for you
Russia will win this war, and the only thing the west has achieved was to help destroy Ukraine by sabotaging negotiations in 2022.
Thanks.
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN’s original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Characterizing the Influence of Confirmation Bias on Web Search Behavior It’s not just you, Google Search really has gotten worse
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it’s definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
Pollution Reveals What Russian Statistics Obscure: Industrial Decline Russian Economic Optimism Is Based on Suspect Data
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Want to share a source on that? Or are you making shit up?
Share a source for NATO invading Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, is that what you’re asking there little buddy?
Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.