Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

As I have always said, I want this war terminate today, so no more Ukrainians and no more Russians die.
It hurts equally. Whenever Ukrainians and Russians die.

But they (we know who they are) feel so much pleasure when Russian soldiers die, so Ukrainian soldiers must sacrifice their own lives in order to make more and more Russians die.
They don't love Ukrainians. They think they are just objects. Stupid puppets. Cannon fodder to sacrifice for their shady plans.

Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is 100% responsible for this invasion. Stop trying to blame some nefarious conspiracy.

Ukraine is fighting to stay a sovereign country and not be conquered by Russia. We all want it to stop, but those of us who aren't defenders of Russia want Russia, who is 100% responsible for this to begin with, to stop their invasion and go back home. It has absolutely zero to do with arms makers or your precious "warmongers".

 

[Magic Man]

I find this whole accusatory tack that some people are using here to be somewhat bemusing. It was similar during the McCarthy era, and it was also frequently used during the Vietnam War era. It's a variation on an ongoing theme: "Those who are not with us are against us."

I find this whole attempt to dismiss valid criticism by pretending it's anything like McCarthyism to be somewhat bemusing. The reason you're having this argument for 50 years is because instead of actually addressing the criticism people have of your claims, you just deflect and dismiss with bogus nonsense like this.

 

[Stevicus]

The historically illiterate tend not to be able to tell when they're historically illiterate.

If you really know so much, then prove it. Expound using your vast knowledge of history (in your own words). Where are your essays and lectures? Tell me how much you actually know about this situation, what caused it, and what the motivations of all sides happen to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you really know so much, then prove it. Expound using your vast knowledge of history (in your own words). Where are your essays and lectures? Tell me how much you actually know about this situation, what caused it, and what the motivations of all sides happen to be.

I know that countries that have a lot of land are still capable of wanting, and conquering, more land.

Incredible, I know. Try to keep your brain from blowing.

 

[Magic Man]

That is what it sounds like. I don't want Ukrainians or Russians to die, but in addition to that, I don't want any NATO troops to die, either. I have family members in the military, and I don't want them to be sent over to die. Needless to say, I also don't want there to be a nuclear war.

It's also reminiscent of the Cold War era when people who had very scant, superficial, and ignorant views of the outside world would somehow claim to be supreme experts in Sovietology. People who could hardly spell their own name would presume to be highly sage and knowledgeable about what the Soviets were planning and would relentlessly attack anyone who didn't march in lockstep behind their reckless warmongering.

It's somewhat the same in this thread, where people who know next to nothing about world events and world history are presuming to lecture me on the subject.

Let's recap again:

You: Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone because they've been invaded numerous times.

Us: No, that's false. 3 minutes of reading up on actual history disproves your claim easily.

You: Russia already has enough land, so clearly they're not doing this to gain land or power.

Us: Uh, that's not at all how this works. Again, 3 minutes of education proves this completely and utterly wrong.

So, you'll have to excuse me when I burst out laughing at "where people who know next to nothing about world events and world history are presuming to lecture me on the subject." I mean, you've made factually incorrect claims about this situation and history. So, indeed you have it backward. You are the one who knows next to nothing about world events and world history, and you're presuming to lecture others on the subject. Then you're getting upset when we point out how wrong your attempts at lecture are.

It's like creationists trying to lecture evolutionary biologists.

It really is. You're here making factually false claims and then sticking your fingers in your ears when we point out that they're factually false.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you really know so much, then prove it. Expound using your vast knowledge of history (in your own words).

Another deflection, ie, make a
demand impractical to meet.

 

[Magic Man]

If you really know so much, then prove it. Expound using your vast knowledge of history (in your own words). Where are your essays and lectures? Tell me how much you actually know about this situation, what caused it, and what the motivations of all sides happen to be.

It doesn't take essays and lectures to make simple points. For instance, empires aren't formed for defense or to create buffer zones. That's a pretty basic concept of the world and history. You don't even have to have any special knowledge of history to understand that.

If you want to talk about the current situation, Russia invaded mostly because Putin wanted to drum up more support for himself, as it's been lagging in recent years. He did it with Ukraine for a few reasons. One, because there is a long history there that he could tap into. Two, because he could use justifications that fool people like several on this thread, like they want to "denazify" Ukraine and it's for defense and protection of the Russian language. He may have had others, but they all kind of go together.

 

[Stevicus]

So, to recap:

Russia invades a sovereign country for no reason other than to take it over or at least depose its government.
The West tries to help Ukraine and pressure Russia to stop its invasion.
You: Well, that hasn't worked, so I guess Ukraine should just give up, and we'll just let Russia win.
Us: OR Russia could do the right thing and stop its attempt at invasion.

Yes, Russia could do the right thing and stop its attempt at invasion. They obviously have no plans to do that anytime soon. That's the reality of what's going on. Simply saying "they should leave" is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here.

So, absent that, what other options do we have? Yes, we could go on as we're doing, sending aid and equipment to Ukraine, but from all indications, it's turning into a war of attrition.

Expecting Russia to capitulate or to fold under Western diplomatic and economic pressures seems unrealistic to me at this point. Russia seems to have turned heavily towards nationalism and xenophobia, where their fear of the West has escalated to the point where they're turning to China and even North Korea for help.

The West seems to believe that the problem is that the Russians don't fear us enough. They seem to think that all we have to do is turn up the pressure on them, increase sanctions, keep aiding Ukraine, show them how tough we are, and somehow that's supposed to make them fold up. I don't think that's going to work. Instead, they appear to be becoming more entrenched, more convinced that they're right, and possibly even believe they're in a death struggle with the West that they'll never give up.

You can call it "support" or "sympathy" if you wish, but that's my analysis of the situation at hand. We can't expect them to give up, and I'm not saying the Ukrainians need to give up anything - not permanently. It just seems pointless to continue wasting lives when they can't gain any ground. A cease-fire now, put out some diplomatic feelers, try to sit down and work out their differences. That's how governments resolve their differences. It's not perfect, and no one is ever completely satisfied, but it does have some success.

 

[Stevicus]

That's just your way of deflecting.

As opposed to your way of deflecting?

 

[Stevicus]

I find this whole attempt to dismiss valid criticism by pretending it's anything like McCarthyism to be somewhat bemusing. The reason you're having this argument for 50 years is because instead of actually addressing the criticism people have of your claims, you just deflect and dismiss with bogus nonsense like this.

What you're missing entirely here is that it is only your opinion that it's "valid criticism." Valid criticism is supported by facts, which you have provided none.

 

[Stevicus]

I know that countries that have a lot of land are still capable of wanting, and conquering, more land.

Incredible, I know. Try to keep your brain from blowing.

Yes, so you know that? Is that all you know? I know it, too. I also know that countries might invade other countries for other reasons, other than land. Did you know that?

 

[Revoltingest]

As opposed to your way of deflecting?

Trying to sound clever?

 

[Stevicus]

Let's recap again:

You: Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone because they've been invaded numerous times.

Which post is this quoted from?

Us: No, that's false. 3 minutes of reading up on actual history disproves your claim easily.

Well, maybe if you'd do more than just "3 minutes of reading," you would know more.

You: Russia already has enough land, so clearly they're not doing this to gain land or power.

Which post is this quoted from?

Us: Uh, that's not at all how this works. Again, 3 minutes of education proves this completely and utterly wrong.

3 minutes, huh? Wow, you must have been a whiz in school.

So, you'll have to excuse me when I burst out laughing at "where people who know next to nothing about world events and world history are presuming to lecture me on the subject."

Seriously, all you've really done is make a vague reference to the Great Northern War (and didn't even follow up on that), aside from a generalized philosophical judgement about why empires are formed and call it "100% fact." It's sometimes hard to notice because of all the bluster and accusations.

I mean, you've made factually incorrect claims about this situation and history.

Where? Please cite exact quotes and post numbers.

So, indeed you have it backward. You are the one who knows next to nothing about world events and world history, and you're presuming to lecture others on the subject. Then you're getting upset when we point out how wrong your attempts at lecture are.

I never have a problem with anyone telling me that I'm wrong. All I've ever asked, if someone thinks I'm wrong, then show me where. You haven't really done so.

It really is. You're here making factually false claims and then sticking your fingers in your ears when we point out that they're factually false.

That's because you're just telling me I'm "wrong" while refusing to explain why. At least I'm willing to explain, even if you want to handwave it all away as "irrelevant."

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, Russia could do the right thing and stop its attempt at invasion. They obviously have no plans to do that anytime soon. That's the reality of what's going on. Simply saying "they should leave" is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here.

If they have no plans to do that, then the fight continues. Those are the two options. Conceding to Russia is not an option.

So, absent that, what other options do we have? Yes, we could go on as we're doing, sending aid and equipment to Ukraine, but from all indications, it's turning into a war of attrition.

Expecting Russia to capitulate or to fold under Western diplomatic and economic pressures seems unrealistic to me at this point. Russia seems to have turned heavily towards nationalism and xenophobia, where their fear of the West has escalated to the point where they're turning to China and even North Korea for help.

The West seems to believe that the problem is that the Russians don't fear us enough. They seem to think that all we have to do is turn up the pressure on them, increase sanctions, keep aiding Ukraine, show them how tough we are, and somehow that's supposed to make them fold up. I don't think that's going to work. Instead, they appear to be becoming more entrenched, more convinced that they're right, and possibly even believe they're in a death struggle with the West that they'll never give up.

You can call it "support" or "sympathy" if you wish, but that's my analysis of the situation at hand. We can't expect them to give up, and I'm not saying the Ukrainians need to give up anything - not permanently. It just seems pointless to continue wasting lives when they can't gain any ground. A cease-fire now, put out some diplomatic feelers, try to sit down and work out their differences. That's how governments resolve their differences. It's not perfect, and no one is ever completely satisfied, but it does have some success.

This is the problem. You're putting all the onus on Ukraine. The onus is on Russia. Whether or not they intend to do what they should is irrelevant. They are to blame. Ukraine is simply trying to defend their country. They have no obligation to give in. Russia will not agree to a ceasefire without major concessions. The conditions they offered were to give up the 4 regions Russia annexed and to vow not to join NATO. In other words, "do these things that will give us a victory, and we'll agree to stop invading you at least for now". So, no, thanks. Ukrain rightly doesn't want to do that. You telling them they should is pretty presumptuous.

 

[Magic Man]

Which post is this quoted from?

Your original one I replied to that started this whole thing. I'd think you'd remember it since it's been the entire point I've been hammering about here.

Well, maybe if you'd do more than just "3 minutes of reading," you would know more.

I have, which is how I know that 3 minutes is all it takes to debunk your drivel.

Which post is this quoted from?

The one that I and ImmortalFlame already replied to multiple times. If your strategy is to bury your claims with dozens of posts, so that you can pretend you never said what you said, it won't work.

3 minutes, huh? Wow, you must have been a whiz in school.

I did pretty well, yeah. Although you don't have to be special. Just take 3 minutes, do a quick google search, read a couple things, and you're done.

Seriously, all you've really done is make a vague reference to the Great Northern War (and didn't even follow up on that), aside from a generalized philosophical judgement about why empires are formed and call it "100% fact." It's sometimes hard to notice because of all the bluster and accusations.

Yes, it is hard to cut through your bluster and accusations, but I'm doing my best. Listen, you started all this with vague references. "Russia creates buffer zones and tries to defend itself" and then "You know, Hitler and Naploeon". You never offered any concrete support. Don't project and accuse me of your own faults.

And yes, I've presented the fact of what empires are and how they work. Again, this is very basic knowledge about the world and history. You don't even have to know any special amount to realize that empires are not a defensive formation.

Where? Please cite exact quotes and post numbers.

I just pointed them out just above. You replied to each separately in this same post. Again, if your strategy is to bury your claims in pages of posts, so you can then try to make me go back and show you exactly where you said them, it's dishonest and won't work. It's not my fault you've gone off on tangents and distracted from the point with all kinds of ridiculous accusations.

I never have a problem with anyone telling me that I'm wrong. All I've ever asked, if someone thinks I'm wrong, then show me where. You haven't really done so.

I have 100% done so. This is how I know you have a problem with being shown your wrong. When someone shows you, you dismiss, distract and accuse, instead of engaging honestly and learning something.

That's because you're just telling me I'm "wrong" while refusing to explain why. At least I'm willing to explain, even if you want to handwave it all away as "irrelevant."

I've explained multiple times. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears doesn't make the explanations go away. Besides, you say you're knowledgeable in history and the world. Someone like that should know very, very basic facts like empires are not formed for defense and "Russia already has enough land, so they must not be doing this just to gain more" is one of the most bafflingly wrong things one could say.

 

[Magic Man]

What you're missing entirely here is that it is only your opinion that it's "valid criticism." Valid criticism is supported by facts, which you have provided none.

Nope. It's valid criticism. Your attempt to claim it's not is unsupported. Again, just because you refuse to see the facts doesn't make them go away. When someone presents facts, the honest way to engage is to acknowledge them and address them. Not just flat out deny they're not there. That's a creationist type tactic.

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia is 100% responsible for this invasion. Stop trying to blame some nefarious conspiracy.

Ukraine is fighting to stay a sovereign country and not be conquered by Russia. We all want it to stop, but those of us who aren't defenders of Russia want Russia, who is 100% responsible for this to begin with, to stop their invasion and go back home. It has absolutely zero to do with arms makers or your precious "warmongers".

One question: when Italians surrendered to the Americans in September 1943, did they do right or wrong?

 

[Magic Man]

One question: when Italians surrendered to the Americans in September 1943, did they do right or wrong?

I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

1) Why do you ask? Do you think the two are comparable?

2) Were the Allies trying to take over a sovereign country for no reason? Or were they fighting against Nazis, Hitler and the Axis powers to stop the Holocaust?

 

[Estro Felino]

I'll answer yours after you answer mine.

1) Why do you ask? Do you think the two are comparable?

Yes. We were invaded after all.

2) Were the Allies trying to take over a sovereign country for no reason? Or were they fighting against Nazis, Hitler and the Axis powers to stop the Holocaust?

The second.
And that's exactly what Russia is doing. Fighting against the Nazis in Ukraine who persecuted and killed the separatists in Donbas.

Do you rely on double standards? Fighting against Nazis is good only when America does it?

 

[Kathryn]

Were the Allies trying to take over a sovereign country for no reason? Or were they fighting against Nazis, Hitler and the Axis powers to stop the Holocaust?

I am not sure that the Allied soldiers KNEW about the Holocaust till after the war. They were certainly surprised at Dachau, which wasn't even a "death camp" per se. And don't forget that one of our allies was Russia.

Just putting things in perspective.