Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

Yes. We were invaded after all.

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?

Ugh, why did I know this was coming. Hitler carried out the Holocaust. Italy formed a partnership and helped him. Fighting Nazis is great, as long as that's actually what's being done.

Russia is not fighting against Nazis. That's just Putin's propaganda. Russia created the conflict in Donbas and promoted the separatists, who were a tiny marginal group. Then Putin used them as justification for aggression.

The Axis powers were actually carrying out the Holocaust. Italy didn't just have some portion of the population who were Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. They officially were helping the official Nazi Regime of Hitler. Ukraine is a country like any other that has some people who are Nazis. Ukraine itself isn't Nazis. They are not controlled by Nazis. They are not carrying out a genocide or even moving toward it. They're much like America and many other countries right now. The far right, including Nazis, are gaining power.

You don't invade another country to fight Nazis who are not in any way official. If so, maybe America should invade Italy again:

Outrage in Italy after hundreds give fascist salute at a rally in Rome

“Absolutely abhorrent,” the European Jewish Congress said on X. “That gesture is from the darkest chapter of our history and must be left there.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia is not fighting against Nazis. That's just Putin's propaganda. Russia created the conflict in Donbas and promoted the separatists, who were a tiny marginal group. Then Putin used them as justification for aggression.

So are you saying that the Nazis who fought against the Donbas separatists are the victims here?

I have always believed in the nations' right to independence and self-determination, so if a region wants to become independent, and the central government prevents it through violence, it means that this government is tyrannical. It's the perpetrator, not the victim.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

The soldiers might not all have known, but they're not the ones making the decisions. The point is that that war was fought over the Holocaust and Hitler and the Axis powers trying to take over Europe and spread their Nazism. Tens of thousands of people died in Dachau, so I'm not sure what your point is.

And yes, at that time Russia was an ally, but only because Hitler stupidly tried to invade them. Before that, they had a truce with him. And none of that really makes a difference regarding the current situation.

 

[Magic Man]

So are you saying that the Nazis who fought against the Donbas separatists are the victims here?

I can't even begin to figure out what you mean.

I have always believed in the nations' right to independence and self-determination, so if a region wants to become independent, and the central government prevents it through violence, it means that this government is tyrannical. It's the perpetrator, not the victim.

Maybe, but that's also not what happened. The region didn't want to become independent. Some people in the region did. Russia chose to use that small group to create a pretense for aggression against Ukraine.

 

[Stevicus]

Trying to sound clever?

Sound?

 

[Stevicus]

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

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.

Not at all. I'm not telling Ukraine that they "should" do anything. I'm just observing that it seems to be the most practical option at the moment. They might not need to make any formal concessions at this point. They don't have to give in to any demands either. They don't have an obligation to give in, but what obligations does the West have here?

 

[Magic Man]

Not at all. I'm not telling Ukraine that they "should" do anything. I'm just observing that it seems to be the most practical option at the moment. They might not need to make any formal concessions at this point. They don't have to give in to any demands either. They don't have an obligation to give in, but what obligations does the West have here?

To obtain a ceasefire, Ukraine absolutely has to make formal concessions and give in to demands. I just posted what Russia demanded for a ceasefire. You're observing that the "most practical option" is for Ukraine to give in to Russia's demands that pretty much hands them a victory. I'm pretty sure Ukraine has thought of that already, and they choose to keep fighting, because, you know, they don't want to actually let Russia win.

The obligations of the west here are to help Ukraine. That means supplying money and military equipment, and it means taking measures to pressure Russia to stop the invasion.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Well, at this point, this sounds like quibbling over what may have been minor points earlier in the thread. No use in rehashing old stuff. Perhaps you may have misunderstood me or misinterpreted my meaning in what I was saying. I don't know. I just grow weary of this.

 

[Stevicus]

To obtain a ceasefire, Ukraine absolutely has to make formal concessions and give in to demands. I just posted what Russia demanded for a ceasefire. You're observing that the "most practical option" is for Ukraine to give in to Russia's demands that pretty much hands them a victory. I'm pretty sure Ukraine has thought of that already, and they choose to keep fighting, because, you know, they don't want to actually let Russia win.

So what if Russia demanded it? They can negotiate a simple cease-fire without any demands or preconditions. Then, maybe they can sit down and discuss it.

The obligations of the west here are to help Ukraine. That means supplying money and military equipment, and it means taking measures to pressure Russia to stop the invasion.

Are these obligations in the form of a formal treaty, signed and ratified by the Western powers?

 

[Magic Man]

Well, at this point, this sounds like quibbling over what may have been minor points earlier in the thread. No use in rehashing old stuff. Perhaps you may have misunderstood me or misinterpreted my meaning in what I was saying. I don't know. I just grow weary of this.

*facepalm*

It's not quibbling, and it's not a minor point. You've now drawn this out over pages and pages and tried to swing the discussion in other directions, only so you can now claim it's a minor point and make some vague claims. Believe me, I was weary of this a long time ago.

You said Russia expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone. You made a whole post devoted to that claim. I pointed out that that was wrong. You wrote paragraphs, most of which didn't even address that topic but tried to steer things to accusations about buying into a "good vs. evil" narrative with Russia as the big evil. Your original point is still wrong.

You can't just distract and dismiss for pages and pages, and then say "Oh, I don't know, maybe that was something before, but no use in rehashing it now". We're not rehashing it. It's the same hash as it's always been.

 

[Magic Man]

So what if Russia demanded it? They can negotiate a simple cease-fire without any demands or preconditions. Then, maybe they can sit down and discuss it.

Huh? How is it possible that you're trying to set yourself up as knowledgeable about geopolitics, the world and history, while saying stuff like this. So what if Russia demanded it? That's the terms for a ceasefire! You want a ceasefire. That's how a ceasefire would happen, unless Russia decides to end the invasion and go home.

Ukraine cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire. That's not even a thing. I'm genuinely unsure how someone could even type what you just did. If Ukraine wants a ceasefire, they have to agree to Russia's demands and conditions. That's the only way they can "sit down and discuss it". Early you said "Simply saying 'they should leave' is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here." Well, simply saying "They should negotiate a ceasefire with no demands or conditions" is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here.

Just the idea that Ukraine can at any time say "Hey, whoa, guys, let's stop fighting for a while and talk about this, huh?" is...wow. If they could do that, why would they not have done it already?

Are these obligations in the form of a formal treaty, signed and ratified by the Western powers?

I don't know. You brought up the topic of the obligations of the west. You tell me. This really has nothing to do with anything anyway and was seemingly just another distraction.

 

[Stevicus]

*facepalm*

It's not quibbling, and it's not a minor point. You've now drawn this out over pages and pages and tried to swing the discussion in other directions, only so you can now claim it's a minor point and make some vague claims. Believe me, I was weary of this a long time ago.

You said Russia expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone. You made a whole post devoted to that claim. I pointed out that that was wrong. You wrote paragraphs, most of which didn't even address that topic but tried to steer things to accusations about buying into a "good vs. evil" narrative with Russia as the big evil. Your original point is still wrong.

You can't just distract and dismiss for pages and pages, and then say "Oh, I don't know, maybe that was something before, but no use in rehashing it now". We're not rehashing it. It's the same hash as it's always been.

I made a general observation based on known historical events. The events I cited did happen; they're well-documented. I didn't cite every single time that Russia has been invaded, only the ones which coincided with significant acquisitions of territory.

It seems that your primary objection is to the use of the term "buffer zone." You don't believe they are acting defensively, but offensively. That seems to be the whole gist of our disagreement here. Is that it? Was there more than that?

 

[Magic Man]

I made a general observation based on known historical events. The events I cited did happen; they're well-documented. I didn't cite every single time that Russia has been invaded, only the ones which coincided with significant acquisitions of territory.

You made an incorrect and inaccurate observation that you claimed based on historical events that don't at all support your claim. The events happened, but your claims about Russia did not. You don't have to cite every time Russia has been invaded. You have to present support for the claim that Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone. Citing examples of them being invaded does not do that. You'd have to present the evidence that establishing an empire could even ever be defensive.

It seems that your primary objection is to the use of the term "buffer zone." You don't believe they are acting defensively, but offensively. That seems to be the whole gist of our disagreement here. Is that it? Was there more than that?

No, my primary objective is to point out that your claim that Russia has expanded and expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone is incorrect, and I've accomplished that. They are acting offensively now, and they have always attempted expansion for offensive purposes.

 

[Stevicus]

Huh? How is it possible that you're trying to set yourself up as knowledgeable about geopolitics, the world and history, while saying stuff like this. So what if Russia demanded it? That's the terms for a ceasefire! You want a ceasefire. That's how a ceasefire would happen, unless Russia decides to end the invasion and go home.

Ukraine cannot negotiate a simple ceasefire. That's not even a thing. I'm genuinely unsure how someone could even type what you just did. If Ukraine wants a ceasefire, they have to agree to Russia's demands and conditions. That's the only way they can "sit down and discuss it". Early you said "Simply saying 'they should leave' is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here." Well, simply saying "They should negotiate a ceasefire with no demands or conditions" is not going to cause it to happen. There is no "magic" that seems to work here.

Just the idea that Ukraine can at any time say "Hey, whoa, guys, let's stop fighting for a while and talk about this, huh?" is...wow. If they could do that, why would they not have done it already?

One thing I do know about geopolitics and diplomacy is that just about anything is negotiable. It's only human stubbornness and intransigence which is why agreements can't be reached. Did it ever occur to you that, despite whatever demands the Russians may be making right now, it's possible to communicate with them and try to persuade them to modify those demands? Did you think about that?

I don't know. You brought up the topic of the obligations of the west. You tell me. This really has nothing to do with anything anyway and was seemingly just another distraction.

I was asking a question. What do you mean it "has nothing to do with anything"? I live in a Western country, don't you? Why are we, as Westerners, discussing this issue at all?

You seem to think that this is some kind of sporting event, confined to a specific field and with a rigid set of rules. This is war we're talking about.

 

[Kathryn]

The soldiers might not all have known, but they're not the ones making the decisions. The point is that that war was fought over the Holocaust and Hitler and the Axis powers trying to take over Europe and spread their Nazism. Tens of thousands of people died in Dachau, so I'm not sure what your point is.

And yes, at that time Russia was an ally, but only because Hitler stupidly tried to invade them. Before that, they had a truce with him. And none of that really makes a difference regarding the current situation.

Whatever you say. My point about Dachau was the surprise and shock of our soldiers by the way.

 

[lukethethird]

Sorry, that doesn't explain it. You're here defending Russia. They are the warmongers here. They invaded a sovereign country. I'm actually opposed to war, which is why I'm opposed to Russia's invasion and don't try to defend it or them.

Sorry, but I have lost interest in your rant.

 

[Stevicus]

You made an incorrect and inaccurate observation that you claimed based on historical events that don't at all support your claim.

In your opinion.

The events happened, but your claims about Russia did not.

In your opinion.

You don't have to cite every time Russia has been invaded. You have to present support for the claim that Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone. Citing examples of them being invaded does not do that. You'd have to present the evidence that establishing an empire could even ever be defensive.

I believe I gave sufficient support to the general observation I made regarding trends regarding Russian history and the national security perceptions they have formulated over the centuries. I didn't say that they always followed the rules or that they were bunch of a nice guys or that they didn't act in their own interests when it suited them. They acted like any nation would act in that situation; that's just how the world works. Much of the time, it hasn't been nice. You don't have to like it, but don't blame the messenger for informing you about it.

No, my primary objective is to point out that your claim that Russia has expanded and expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone is incorrect, and I've accomplished that.

In your opinion.

They are acting offensively now, and they have always attempted expansion for offensive purposes.

Then perhaps it's best that we focus on what's happening now, since your historical arguments about what they have "always" done aren't holding water.

 

[Magic Man]

One thing I do know about geopolitics and diplomacy is that just about anything is negotiable. It's only human stubbornness and intransigence which is why agreements can't be reached. Did it ever occur to you that, despite whatever demands the Russians may be making right now, it's possible to communicate with them and try to persuade them to modify those demands? Did you think about that?

Did you think about the fact that obviously that would already have been tried?

I was asking a question. What do you mean it "has nothing to do with anything"? I live in a Western country, don't you? Why are we, as Westerners, discussing this issue at all?

Because it affects us as well as the rest of the world.

You seem to think that this is some kind of sporting event, confined to a specific field and with a rigid set of rules. This is war we're talking about.

I can't even begin to figure out what this is even supposed to mean or what it even refers to. If you want to rephrase so it is in reference to something I said and makes enough sense to parse, I'll respond.

 

[Magic Man]

One thing I do know about geopolitics and diplomacy is that just about anything is negotiable. It's only human stubbornness and intransigence which is why agreements can't be reached. Did it ever occur to you that, despite whatever demands the Russians may be making right now, it's possible to communicate with them and try to persuade them to modify those demands? Did you think about that?

Did you think about the fact that obviously that would already have been tried?

I was asking a question. What do you mean it "has nothing to do with anything"? I live in a Western country, don't you? Why are we, as Westerners, discussing this issue at all?

Because it affects us as well as the rest of the world.

You seem to think that this is some kind of sporting event, confined to a specific field and with a rigid set of rules. This is war we're talking about.

I can't even begin to figure out what this is even supposed to mean or what it even refers to. If you want to rephrase so it is in reference to something I said and makes enough sense to parse, I'll respond.

 

[Magic Man]

Whatever you say. My point about Dachau was the surprise and shock of our soldiers by the way.

But you said it wasn't "even a 'death camp' per se", as if there's a need for a distinction, despite tens of thousands of people dying there. And I appreciate you agreeing with me.