Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

But US invaded Kosovo when it was still Serbia.
Was it rightful back then?
Or do you apply double standards ? A standard for US, another standard for Russia.

We're talking about Ukraine and Russia right now. You hate Ukraine and love Russia because of Russian propaganda. You pretend Ukraine has a problem with illegitimate elections and that Russia actually has legitimate elections. You have a double standard.

The leftist minority...yes.
The Italian Democratic Party has lost 14 regions out of 20.
In democracy the majority matters.

None of that means the majority agrees with you here.

At least Russia has more than two parties.
A two-party-system is undemocratic.

No, they have a nominally two-party system. In practice, it's a dictatorship. The elections are a sham and don't have any actual effect. That's why Putin wins with 88%. No legitimate elections in a big country ever have that kind of majority.

 

[Magic Man]

Russia has never wanted to join the EU.
And Russia cannot join the EU because it's not democratic enough. It must change.

Ukraine has always wanted to join the EU...but they need to change, that's why I was focusing on Ukraine.
If they withdrew their candidacy, well...I would stop caring about Kiev.

Riiiiight. It's ONLY because they want to join the EU. Except for the fact that you want Putin to take over Italy, and none of your criticisms here have anything to do with the EU. You're not criticizing Ukraine because they want to join the EU. You're just criticizing them in general.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Explain me this video, then,
What does the NATO chief mean, here?

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, so yes, I agree that its war on Ukraine is at least a decade old. What conclusion have you formed based on that clip (which is 23 seconds long anyway, so it doesn't have much context)?

If Ukrainian men adore him so much that they are ready to die for the sake of him (who won't go to war, he stays sound and safe, while sending his people to die), why are they leaving Ukraine en masse?
To migrate to Poland or Germany?

What do you mean by "en masse"? I'm sure some are leaving the country, but many others are fighting to defend their country—not for the sake of Zelenskyy, as you put it, but for their country.

Also, it wouldn't help the country if its elected president got killed during the war. His role is in leadership, not to fight and risk dying on the battlefield. This is no different from the role many military leaders fulfill during wartime; they strategize and lead but ensure they remain safe and alive so they can do their job.

 

[Estro Felino]

Riiiiight. It's ONLY because they want to join the EU. Except for the fact that you want Putin to take over Italy, and none of your criticisms here have anything to do with the EU. You're not criticizing Ukraine because they want to join the EU. You're just criticizing them in general.

If Russia takes over Italy, why do you care?

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, so yes, I agree that its war on Ukraine is at least a decade old. What conclusion have you formed based on that clip (which is 23 seconds long anyway, so it doesn't have much context)?

Crimea wanted to be independent from Ukraine.
As Kosovo wanted to be independent from Serbia.

I don't understand why the first desire is illegitimate, while the second is legitimate.

What do you mean by "en masse"? I'm sure some are leaving the country, but many others are fighting to defend their country—not for the sake of Zelenskyy, as you put it, but for their country.

If it was something willing, there would be no compulsory conscription...
as in Europe before it exited the Medieval stage and became liberal.

Also, it wouldn't help the country if its elected president got killed during the war.

It depends on his courage, I guess.
There are countless European monarchs who died in the battlefield. The kingdom continued.

 

[Magic Man]

If Russia takes over Italy, why do you care?

1) Because I don't want Russia gaining any more land and power.

2) I don't think Italy wants that.

3) I guarantee none of the rest of Europe wants it.

 

[Estro Felino]

1) Because I don't want Russia gaining any more land and power.

2) I don't think Italy wants that.

3) I guarantee none of the rest of Europe wants it.

Because Italy is a US colony, and has zero freedom to choose?
Say it, liberate yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

Just because it is your opinion that it is absurd, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You quoted a random statement out of context and have chosen to fixate on it. That's what is absurd here.

It's not an opinion. It's absurd. You don't have to acknowledge that. It's also not a random statement or out of context. You claimed that Russia already has enough land and so isn't taking over other land for offensive purposes.

If you really believe it to be so absurd, why would it be so difficult for you to list rational, logical arguments as to why you think that's true?

It's not. It's been pointed out. Although it is one of those statements that's so absurd that it's hard to know where to start. The fact that you're defending it is amazing.

What you consider "enough land" and what someone else considers "enough land" are not the same. Especially when talking about power-hungry dictators. Napoleon had "enough land" but kept trying to conquer more. Britain had "enough land" but kept colonizing anyway. Etc.

 

[Magic Man]

Because Italy is a US colony, and has zero freedom to choose?
Say it, liberate yourself.

Uh, what? Was that supposed to make sense?

 

[Magic Man]

Just because it is your opinion that it is absurd, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You quoted a random statement out of context and have chosen to fixate on it. That's what is absurd here.

It's not an opinion. It's absurd. You don't have to acknowledge that. It's also not a random statement or out of context. You claimed that Russia already has enough land and so isn't taking over other land for offensive purposes.

If you really believe it to be so absurd, why would it be so difficult for you to list rational, logical arguments as to why you think that's true?

It's not. It's been pointed out. Although it is one of those statements that's so absurd that it's hard to know where to start. The fact that you're defending it is amazing.

What you consider "enough land" and what someone else considers "enough land" are not the same. Especially when talking about power-hungry dictators. Napoleon had "enough land" but kept trying to conquer more. Britain had "enough land" but kept colonizing anyway. Etc.

 

[Magic Man]

Italy is an American military colony.
Do I speak Inuit by chance?
It's English.

If that was supposed to make more sense than the last, it failed.

 

[Magic Man]

Was there a point to this thread other than what seems to me to be an attempt at justifying Putin's invasion by demonizing Ukraine?

No, I think that about covers it. Others have jumped in to defend Russia (more than demonize Ukraine), but it's all the same goal.

 

[Stevicus]

Yup.

No, you've been saying they should stop fighting.

It was a suggestion to both sides, not a command.

Uh, no. We didn't hear it in those cases. Those countries weren't invaded by another country that was clearly just trying to take them over. Stop trying to pretend this is the same as them.

Yes, and "this time, it's different" is also part of the same familiar pattern.

Russia invaded Ukraine for no good reason. Ukraine is fighting to maintain their freedom/country. We're helping them do that. That's not what happened in those other cases. This one has nothing to do with right-wing warmongers. In fact the right wing is in cahoots with Russia and is fully against giving more aid to Ukraine, which in itself destroys this your line of thinking here.

Our government has taken sides in a conflict between two opposing factions far away from us and where no U.S. territory is at risk. That's a similarity between this and those other situations I mentioned.

Another similarity is that it's typically presented as a "damsel in distress" situation where the U.S. is the white knight galloping in to save them from the evil dragon.

So, there are similarities here, even if you choose not to see them.

Oh, yes, and it's all about "freedom." It's always about freedom. That's our job, as the leader of the free world. We've heard that on all those other occasions, too, so there's another similarity.

Each time also carried the implied threat that, "if we don't stop them and/or stand up to them here, they'll just keep going and going and going." The Domino Theory in Vietnam seemed to carry a lot of weight among US policymakers, who believed that if the Communists weren't stopped in Vietnam, all the other Southeast Asian states would tumble like dominoes. Nicaragua and US aid to the Contras carried the same message. The view was that, if we didn't stand up to the Sandinistas, communism would spread throughout Central America, and into Mexico, and into the United States. It was the same with the invasion of Grenada.

I'm not pretending that they're the same. I'm not even saying that they are the same. All I'm saying is that, what I'm currently hearing about Ukraine is a familiar refrain from what I've heard in the past about other crises. Ordinarily, it's been a position echoed by those who generally advocate a more militaristic and interventionist set of foreign policies, most of whom tended to reside on the right side of the spectrum. I can't explain some of the more recent anomalies you allude to, regarding the right-wing and left-wing today. Politics have gotten rather weird lately.

 

[Magic Man]

It was a suggestion to both sides, not a command.



Yes, and "this time, it's different" is also part of the same familiar pattern.

This is such a surface-level view of the situation, it's crazy. Whether or not you can point to a few things that are similar means nothing.

This is different from those situations, in very obvious ways. That's something you'd spot very easily if you actually knew a little bit about the situations and world history, as you claim.

Our government has taken sides in a conflict between two opposing factions far away from us and where no U.S. territory is at risk. That's a similarity between this and those other situations I mentioned.

Another similarity is that it's typically presented as a "damsel in distress" situation where the U.S. is the white knight galloping in to save them from the evil dragon.

So, there are similarities here, even if you choose not to see them.

There are similarities in a lot of things. Hitler had a mustache and so does Tom Selleck. They're both famous men. They're both charismatic. Does that make them comparable?

Just pointing out a couple vague similarities doesn't make two situations comparable.

Russia invaded Ukraine. You already agree that's wrong (at least you agreed with it was said by someone on your side here). Ukraine deserves to not be taken over by another country. That's a good cause to support. It's also very different from the situations you mentioned. There's no question there are also some ulterior motives by some wealthy supporters, but that doesn't change the overall nature of the situation.

Oh, yes, and it's all about "freedom." It's always about freedom. That's our job, as the leader of the free world. We've heard that on all those other occasions, too, so there's another similarity.

Is this not about freedom? Do you deny that Ukraine is fighting to remain free from Russian rule?

Each time also carried the implied threat that, "if we don't stop them and/or stand up to them here, they'll just keep going and going and going." The Domino Theory in Vietnam seemed to carry a lot of weight among US policymakers, who believed that if the Communists weren't stopped in Vietnam, all the other Southeast Asian states would tumble like dominoes. Nicaragua and US aid to the Contras carried the same message. The view was that, if we didn't stand up to the Sandinistas, communism would spread throughout Central America, and into Mexico, and into the United States. It was the same with the invasion of Grenada.

I'm not pretending that they're the same. I'm not even saying that they are the same. All I'm saying is that, what I'm currently hearing about Ukraine is a familiar refrain from what I've heard in the past about other crises. Ordinarily, it's been a position echoed by those who generally advocate a more militaristic and interventionist set of foreign policies, most of whom tended to reside on the right side of the spectrum. I can't explain some of the more recent anomalies you allude to, regarding the right-wing and left-wing today. Politics have gotten rather weird lately.

And you're purposely ignoring the major differences in the situations so you can pretend they're comparable and use the past situations to defend Russia.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, there were no presidential elections in Ukraine in March, which is when they are supposed to occur.
Ukrainian presidential elections - Wikipedia

"Zelenskyy originally promised to only serve 1 term but recanted that in 2021. Ukrainian presidents serve for five years. Since 1991, there have been seven presidential elections - in 1991, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2010, 2014 and 2019."

 

[Stevicus]

That's an example of a good, rational reason to defend Ukraine.

And sometimes things are that simple. It's better that Ukraine - a nation of people who overwhelmingly support independence from Russia - remain free rather than come under Russian control. And it's also better that Russia - a belligerent, quasi-fascist state that regularly conducted wars of imperialism and annexes foreign territory - not be allowed to bully and attack their neighbours without consequence.

That is fairly cut and dried.

If you were arguing a court case, one could say that it's an "open and shut" case in terms of demonstrating Russia's guilt in this situation. I'm not really arguing against that, although it seems to imply that the West has some sort of global law enforcement authority.

I would also take note of your use of the phrase "not be allowed," wondering who is in the position to be able to "allow" or "not allow" under these circumstances. Do we have the resources, the wherewithal, the will, and the muscle to disallow them to do that? What are we prepared to do? How far are we willing to go? When it comes to these questions, it's not so cut and dried.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, there were no presidential elections in Ukraine in March, which is when they are supposed to occur.
Ukrainian presidential elections - Wikipedia

"Zelenskyy originally promised to only serve 1 term but recanted that in 2021. Ukrainian presidents serve for five years. Since 1991, there have been seven presidential elections - in 1991, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2010, 2014 and 2019."

Yes, we're aware. They didn't hold elections because of the invasion by Russia. Seems like a pretty legitimate reason. Him "recanting" isn't surprising. Only serving one term voluntarily would be weird. That's not much time to get the immense amount done that needs to be.

 

[Magic Man]

If you were arguing a court case, one could say that it's an "open and shut" case in terms of demonstrating Russia's guilt in this situation. I'm not really arguing against that, although it seems to imply that the West has some sort of global law enforcement authority.

I would also take note of your use of the phrase "not be allowed," wondering who is in the position to be able to "allow" or "not allow" under these circumstances. Do we have the resources, the wherewithal, the will, and the muscle to disallow them to do that? What are we prepared to do? How far are we willing to go? When it comes to these questions, it's not so cut and dried.

Not much different from "not allowing" Hitler to take over more and more of Europe. The details of how we do it are complicated, but the overall idea is cut and dried.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, we're aware. They didn't hold elections because of the invasion by Russia. Seems like a pretty legitimate reason. Him "recanting" isn't surprising. Only serving one term voluntarily would be weird. That's not much time to get the immense amount done that needs to be.

Zelenskyy ran on three campaign promises:

(1) maximum efforts for peace in Donbas, (2) fighting corruption to deliver good and responsive governance, and (3) improving the well-being of ordinary Ukrainian people.

I could be wrong but I don't think he has delivered on any of this. Meanwhile, he has also reneged on his promise to only serve one five year term, and there have been no elections this year.

 

[Revoltingest]

It proves....

....nothing.