still missing: mortal threat to russian lives and soverignty.
yeah, minsk wouldve been a good compromise and it was purposefully sabotaged by ukrainian ultranationalists---that doesn't mean Russia's acting in unqualified self defense. this war ain't being fought on Russian soil
"Russia helping the Donbas separatists resist the literal neo-nazis attacking them extended the siege by preventing the resistance from immediately collapsing"
Bullshit take. The only way to stop the violent imposition of ethnonationalist rule over Donbas was and is through force, as Minsk 2 proved. The absence of a war would not mean the presence of peace for those ethnic Russians as Azovites nonetheless run roughshod over them unopposed.
You're bullshitting for the sake of a point you can't defend. I never said Putin was engaged in charity -- he is not, he's just a mafioso. It is nonetheless better for Donbas if his gang succeeds rather than the Banderite gang.
merely ommitting the context that contradicts your characterization of arming the LPR/DPR as humanitarian antifascist aid
the separatists would have folded without russian aid. i am not making a moral case, just saying that russian actions contributed to the extended war & casualties. this is factual. pretending the russians were not involved militarily in ukraine after 2014 is lying, however much preferable the russians might be to banderites.
merely ommitting the context that contradicts your characterization of arming the LPR/DPR as humanitarian antifascist aid
Bull-fucking-shit, I have never and would never characterize Russia's actions this way, merely explaining how we should evaluate them. I apologize for not going through the fucking kabuki theater of disavowals with people who should (and perhaps do) know better by this point, I do that shit enough trying to explain to liberals that the invasion was not "unprovoked" as the Reddit phrasing goes. Putin is a mafioso -- as I say on what feels like every single comment I make on the subject -- his agenda just happens to be the one that is better for us. This isn't a difficult concept.
the separatists would have folded without russian aid. i am not making a moral case, just saying that russian actions contributed to the extended war & casualties. this is factual.
It's also a stupid argument. "If the Warsaw insurgents merely surrendered instead, there would be less fighting!" Yes, but this is completely blind to what the purpose of the fighting is and the violence that happens outside of what we recognize as war. Violence against the people of Donbas would not have stopped just because the shelling did, the ethnic Russians -- along with all other minorities in Ukraine -- would have become more and more marginalized even within that "peace" while anyone suspected of dissidence would be tortured and/or murdered by Banderites, and who knows what a bunch of Banderites who are heavily armed, state-sanctioned, and have subjugated a region of unruly ethnic Russians would do to them in the long term? I wonder if we can get any insight on that from Bandera, "their father" I'll let you reach your own conclusions on how neo-nazis deal with ethnicities they hate.
pretending the russians were not involved militarily in ukraine after 2014 is lying, however much preferable the russians might be to banderites.
This is obvious and our discussion up to this point was predicated on this assumption. I see no reason for you to bring it up now as though I am contesting it unless you're really that desperate to look like you have a case to make. As I already said, Russia sending military aid to Donbas insurgents was good, a statement that would be nonsensical if they had not, in fact, been sending military aid to Donbas.
I apologize for not going through the fucking kabuki theater of disavowals
like it sucks to do it but when you talk about things to not literally the same people you have to. i mean you're here under a comment foretelling a fictional ukranonazi genocide of russia, how am i supposed to know you aren't on board with the ridiculous OP if you don't say so? nobody is privy to the totality of your worldview unless you make it clear.
i'm pretty done with this shit, if you want to have a no-assumptions discussion take it up some other time, under a comment disagreeing with a comment disagreeing with a post is no way to talk about something with any nuance
Minsk agreements that Russia kept trying all specifically kept Donbas as part of Ukraine. Russia were happy to have Crimea immediately in 2014, they never wanted Donbas that's why it fucked around for years and years and years before this. Ukraine had almost no fucking army at all in 2014, that's why all the fighters were nazi batallions through Right Sector and Azov. Had they wanted it, they could have taken it without any resistance whatsoever back then.
Pretending this is about land grabbing that region is just absolute nonsense cooked up by liberals.
deleted by creator
still missing: mortal threat to russian lives and soverignty.
yeah, minsk wouldve been a good compromise and it was purposefully sabotaged by ukrainian ultranationalists---that doesn't mean Russia's acting in unqualified self defense. this war ain't being fought on Russian soil
deleted by creator
ethnic russian citizens of ukraine, a siege the russians had a hand in extending through armed support to the separatists
"Russia helping the Donbas separatists resist the literal neo-nazis attacking them extended the siege by preventing the resistance from immediately collapsing"
Bullshit take. The only way to stop the violent imposition of ethnonationalist rule over Donbas was and is through force, as Minsk 2 proved. The absence of a war would not mean the presence of peace for those ethnic Russians as Azovites nonetheless run roughshod over them unopposed.
separatists now annexed to the russian federation. i for one think the russians were simply there to help
You're bullshitting for the sake of a point you can't defend. I never said Putin was engaged in charity -- he is not, he's just a mafioso. It is nonetheless better for Donbas if his gang succeeds rather than the Banderite gang.
merely ommitting the context that contradicts your characterization of arming the LPR/DPR as humanitarian antifascist aid
the separatists would have folded without russian aid. i am not making a moral case, just saying that russian actions contributed to the extended war & casualties. this is factual. pretending the russians were not involved militarily in ukraine after 2014 is lying, however much preferable the russians might be to banderites.
Bull-fucking-shit, I have never and would never characterize Russia's actions this way, merely explaining how we should evaluate them. I apologize for not going through the fucking kabuki theater of disavowals with people who should (and perhaps do) know better by this point, I do that shit enough trying to explain to liberals that the invasion was not "unprovoked" as the Reddit phrasing goes. Putin is a mafioso -- as I say on what feels like every single comment I make on the subject -- his agenda just happens to be the one that is better for us. This isn't a difficult concept.
It's also a stupid argument. "If the Warsaw insurgents merely surrendered instead, there would be less fighting!" Yes, but this is completely blind to what the purpose of the fighting is and the violence that happens outside of what we recognize as war. Violence against the people of Donbas would not have stopped just because the shelling did, the ethnic Russians -- along with all other minorities in Ukraine -- would have become more and more marginalized even within that "peace" while anyone suspected of dissidence would be tortured and/or murdered by Banderites, and who knows what a bunch of Banderites who are heavily armed, state-sanctioned, and have subjugated a region of unruly ethnic Russians would do to them in the long term? I wonder if we can get any insight on that from Bandera, "their father"
I'll let you reach your own conclusions on how neo-nazis deal with ethnicities they hate.
This is obvious and our discussion up to this point was predicated on this assumption. I see no reason for you to bring it up now as though I am contesting it unless you're really that desperate to look like you have a case to make. As I already said, Russia sending military aid to Donbas insurgents was good, a statement that would be nonsensical if they had not, in fact, been sending military aid to Donbas.
like it sucks to do it but when you talk about things to not literally the same people you have to. i mean you're here under a comment foretelling a fictional ukranonazi genocide of russia, how am i supposed to know you aren't on board with the ridiculous OP if you don't say so? nobody is privy to the totality of your worldview unless you make it clear.
i'm pretty done with this shit, if you want to have a no-assumptions discussion take it up some other time, under a comment disagreeing with a comment disagreeing with a post is no way to talk about something with any nuance
Minsk agreements that Russia kept trying all specifically kept Donbas as part of Ukraine. Russia were happy to have Crimea immediately in 2014, they never wanted Donbas that's why it fucked around for years and years and years before this. Ukraine had almost no fucking army at all in 2014, that's why all the fighters were nazi batallions through Right Sector and Azov. Had they wanted it, they could have taken it without any resistance whatsoever back then.
Pretending this is about land grabbing that region is just absolute nonsense cooked up by liberals.