Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy. It's not what I'd do, but Putin seemed to think it was the move to make.
Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy
I'm sorry, I thought that you weren't this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn't expand to any US border, and is not the word's most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.
In any case, I'm going to note that you did refuse to give an answer to the question, are fine with committing war crimes (in particular, with Ukraine using cluster bombs on its own populated areas), and you seem to think that Sweden and Finland weren't already de facto NATO states, despite their prior participation in NATO atrocities.
It's not what I'd do
Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.
I’m sorry, I thought that you weren’t this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn’t expand to any US border, and is not the word’s most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine, so I interpreted your comment through that lens. I've heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I've never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim, so I assumed that was what you meant. You know, because it's relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike Afghanistan.
Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn't resist. I never did, nor was that the topic at hand. Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine. Ukraine being the country they invaded. Voluntarily. Arguably for imperialist reasons. Unless, of course, you think it's pure coincidence that Russia would stand to gain ports, natural gas (or is it oil? I think natural gas), and a ton of food production.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine
We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.
I've heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I've never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim
The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn't resist
You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.
I never did, nor was that the topic at hand
It's literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn't have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.
Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding
Cool. So, what you said is that Russia responded correctly to your aggression. Good to know that you will now delete your cold comments now that you realise that you were in the wrong.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine
War with NATO more generally.
And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.
Ukraine being the country they invaded
After NATO did a coup in Ukraine and set up a puppet government there that was attempting to bring NATO's weapons to the Russian border.
Voluntarily
Cool. So what would you do? Let the most prolific aggressor in the world harass and attack you? Lol.
Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.
I’m sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine
We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.
Cute. Downright adorable. You knew full well what I was talking about, you just elected to change the subject. Which suggests you're not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down.
I’ve heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I’ve never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim
The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.
I haven't heard of this before, so I'll check it out.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn’t resist
You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.
I can't believe your reading comprehension is genuinely that poor. You know what I actually meant, and this is just a poor attempt to change the subject to one you find more favorable.
I never did, nor was that the topic at hand
It’s literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn’t have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.
Look, there's the discussion you want to have, and there's the discussion the rest of us who are paying attention are trying to have. Try to stay on topic. No, I did not mention Afghanistan, even if the description is relevant to more than what we're talking about. No, it wasn't a genuine mistake to misinterpret it that way. Don't try to play smug and stupid at the same time.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine
War with NATO more generally.
And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.
Full-scale? No. Invasion? Yes. Russia tried to deny troop presence, but I recall several instances of soldiers accidentally revealing their presence.
Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.
You know, I don't recall ever mentioning those things. Don't see them in this thread anywhere. Do you assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you, or am I just special?
Which suggests you're not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down
Oh? Were you arguing in good faith when you refused to elaborate on how you think Russia should have reacted to your aggression, then?
You know what I actually meant
That the rest of the world shouldn't resist you? Nah, I got that. I'm just trying to get you to say that overtly. Or, as an alternative, to get you to admit to having been in the wrong and doing better in the future.
Full-scale? No. Invasion? Yes.
And then Ukraine and NATO had years to cease the aggression against Russia.
You know, I don't recall ever mentioning those things. Don't see them in this thread anywhere. Do you assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you, or am I just special?
Do you agree that what you keep doing is monstrous and that you need to be stopped, then? Do you agree with Russia's course of action or can you suggest an alternative?
Which suggests you’re not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down
Oh? Were you arguing in good faith when you refused to elaborate on how you think Russia should have reacted to your aggression, then?
Given that it isn't the discussion I was initially involved in and attempted to stay out of it because I won't claim to have simplistic solutions to complex problems, yeah, I'd say I was. There's the right thing to do, and there's the thing you can actually convince all involved parties to do. Unfortunately, telling everyone to leave each other the fuck alone and play nicely won't do anything meaningful, and I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert capable of discerning what all parties will begrudgingly agree to. I just was able to recognize an armed invasion as an act of war when the discussion was on whether or not Russia was trying to avoid war.
The rest of this is mostly just you attempting to shove words in my mouth. Nobody should be invading anyone. Nobody should be genociding anyone. Yes, I am capable of understanding when when western countries do fucked up things. Yes, I think they should knock it off. Yes, that applies to Russia, too.
Given that it isn't the discussion I was initially involved in and attempted to stay out of it because I won't claim to have simplistic solutions to complex problems, yeah, I'd say I was
Lol. You mockingly branded the Russian response to your aggression as bad, but are unable to provide even an overview of a solution.
Rather obvious that you are trying to save fact after being exposed as just trying to justify committing atrocities.
There's the right thing to do
Which was what in this situation?
Unfortunately, telling everyone to leave each other the fuck alone and play nicely won't do anything meaningful
I.e. you won't be convinced to stop exploiting and invading the rest of the world. The only language that you understand is violence. You will only stop committing atrocities when you are forced to. And you still try to pretend that you have any sort of ground to tell the rest of the world how resistance against you is wrong.
and I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert capable of discerning what all parties will begrudgingly agree to
That's literally what you've been doing when branding the Russian response as bad.
I just was able to recognize an armed invasion as an act of war when the discussion was on whether or not Russia was trying to avoid war
So, you think that giving NATO and Ukraine years to cease aggression was not an attempt to avoid war?
Nobody should be invading anyone
So, do you agree that what you keep doing is monstrous, and that you should be stopped?
You criticise me for assuming what you think. You have a great opportunity to prove me wrong. Why aren't you seizing this opportunity? Are you unable to prove me wrong and are trying to save face?
Yes, I am capable of understanding when when western countries do fucked up things. Yes, I think they should knock it off. Yes, that applies to Russia, too
Either Russia is justified in responding to your aggression the way that it did, or you can provide an alternative solution to your aggression.
So far, Russia has not been an unprovoked invader, unlike you.
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me. You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support, and you're frankly doing a piss poor job of it. No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument, and I'm done engaging with it. Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war, and all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting.
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me
You are literally trying to justify the actions of the world's most prolific aggressor and claim that resistance to it is bad.
So yes, I am going to associate you with the world's most prolific aggressor until you stop supporting it.
You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support
You have literally come here to talk about how bad resistance to you is.
No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument
Well, that's obviously false at least on account of me pointing to the fact that you can't actually provide an alternative way to resist you, and your argument is reducible to 'resisting us is bad'.
Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war
What you did is claim that giving NATO years to cease aggression wasn't an attempt at avoiding a war.
And all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting
You had every opportunity to prove me wrong by providing an alternative way to resist you. You took no opportunities to do so, even when prompted.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad. It is literally pointing out an act of aggression. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the deal for Ukraine giving up nukes was that Russia agrees to respect their sovereignty. And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory. Twice now. I don't believe you're so stupid you can't grasp that, I think you're just that disingenuous.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad
So, was Russia giving NATO years to cease its aggression a bad way to avoid war or not?
According to the Budapest Memorandum
Imagine not seeing international law as a joke in the year 2024.
And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory
And to defend against your aggression.
Notably, you are yet to provide any sort of alternative to resisting your aggression this way.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it's impotent.
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it’s impotent.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war. I made no direct comments about other topics, nor did I intend to imply anything beyond that. To quote the comment that sparked all of this:
it’s pretty clear that Russia tried very hard to prevent the situation in Ukraine from devolving into a war.
Russia is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of the facts that form the basis for the decision, if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region. That's it. That's my full claim. You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war
Cool. You are yet to present any sort of argument for how giving NATO years to stop aggression was a bad way to avoid war.
To quote the comment that sparked all of this: ...
Yeah. So, how was giving you years to stop your aggression a bad way to avoid war? How should have Russia approached this?
Russia is responsible for their own actions
And you should be held responsible for your actions. The rest of the world has every right to resist you. You have no ground to tell the world how to resist you.
if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region
Russia gave you years to stop aggression. You didn't.
That's it. That's my full claim
So, you decided to completely ignore what the person you were responding to was talking about, and you can't even provide a supposedly-better alternative way to respond to your aggression. Good to know.
You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about
The person whom you were responding about said that Russia did try to avoid war, which is true. Russia did give you years to stop your aggression. You keep pretending as if that did not happen.
I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region
You mean after NATO enacted a coup there and after NATO reneged on its promises to not do what it did, and after NATO tried to establish a military presence there to attack Russia?
Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy. It's not what I'd do, but Putin seemed to think it was the move to make.
I'm sorry, I thought that you weren't this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn't expand to any US border, and is not the word's most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.
In any case, I'm going to note that you did refuse to give an answer to the question, are fine with committing war crimes (in particular, with Ukraine using cluster bombs on its own populated areas), and you seem to think that Sweden and Finland weren't already de facto NATO states, despite their prior participation in NATO atrocities.
Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.
I'm sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine, so I interpreted your comment through that lens. I've heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I've never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim, so I assumed that was what you meant. You know, because it's relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike Afghanistan.
Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn't resist. I never did, nor was that the topic at hand. Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding.
The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine. Ukraine being the country they invaded. Voluntarily. Arguably for imperialist reasons. Unless, of course, you think it's pure coincidence that Russia would stand to gain ports, natural gas (or is it oil? I think natural gas), and a ton of food production.
We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.
The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.
You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.
It's literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn't have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.
Cool. So, what you said is that Russia responded correctly to your aggression. Good to know that you will now delete your cold comments now that you realise that you were in the wrong.
War with NATO more generally.
And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.
After NATO did a coup in Ukraine and set up a puppet government there that was attempting to bring NATO's weapons to the Russian border.
Cool. So what would you do? Let the most prolific aggressor in the world harass and attack you? Lol.
Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.
Cute. Downright adorable. You knew full well what I was talking about, you just elected to change the subject. Which suggests you're not arguing in good faith and just wanted a smug put down.
I haven't heard of this before, so I'll check it out.
I can't believe your reading comprehension is genuinely that poor. You know what I actually meant, and this is just a poor attempt to change the subject to one you find more favorable.
Look, there's the discussion you want to have, and there's the discussion the rest of us who are paying attention are trying to have. Try to stay on topic. No, I did not mention Afghanistan, even if the description is relevant to more than what we're talking about. No, it wasn't a genuine mistake to misinterpret it that way. Don't try to play smug and stupid at the same time.
Full-scale? No. Invasion? Yes. Russia tried to deny troop presence, but I recall several instances of soldiers accidentally revealing their presence.
You know, I don't recall ever mentioning those things. Don't see them in this thread anywhere. Do you assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with you, or am I just special?
Oh? Were you arguing in good faith when you refused to elaborate on how you think Russia should have reacted to your aggression, then?
That the rest of the world shouldn't resist you? Nah, I got that. I'm just trying to get you to say that overtly. Or, as an alternative, to get you to admit to having been in the wrong and doing better in the future.
And then Ukraine and NATO had years to cease the aggression against Russia.
Do you agree that what you keep doing is monstrous and that you need to be stopped, then? Do you agree with Russia's course of action or can you suggest an alternative?
Given that it isn't the discussion I was initially involved in and attempted to stay out of it because I won't claim to have simplistic solutions to complex problems, yeah, I'd say I was. There's the right thing to do, and there's the thing you can actually convince all involved parties to do. Unfortunately, telling everyone to leave each other the fuck alone and play nicely won't do anything meaningful, and I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert capable of discerning what all parties will begrudgingly agree to. I just was able to recognize an armed invasion as an act of war when the discussion was on whether or not Russia was trying to avoid war.
The rest of this is mostly just you attempting to shove words in my mouth. Nobody should be invading anyone. Nobody should be genociding anyone. Yes, I am capable of understanding when when western countries do fucked up things. Yes, I think they should knock it off. Yes, that applies to Russia, too.
Lol. You mockingly branded the Russian response to your aggression as bad, but are unable to provide even an overview of a solution.
Rather obvious that you are trying to save fact after being exposed as just trying to justify committing atrocities.
Which was what in this situation?
I.e. you won't be convinced to stop exploiting and invading the rest of the world. The only language that you understand is violence. You will only stop committing atrocities when you are forced to. And you still try to pretend that you have any sort of ground to tell the rest of the world how resistance against you is wrong.
That's literally what you've been doing when branding the Russian response as bad.
So, you think that giving NATO and Ukraine years to cease aggression was not an attempt to avoid war?
So, do you agree that what you keep doing is monstrous, and that you should be stopped?
You criticise me for assuming what you think. You have a great opportunity to prove me wrong. Why aren't you seizing this opportunity? Are you unable to prove me wrong and are trying to save face?
Either Russia is justified in responding to your aggression the way that it did, or you can provide an alternative solution to your aggression.
So far, Russia has not been an unprovoked invader, unlike you.
Look, I'm not sure who you're upset with, but it's not me. You're spending a lot of effort to assume what I do and don't believe and support, and you're frankly doing a piss poor job of it. No aspect of what you've said since you first engaged with me has constituted a good faith argument, and I'm done engaging with it. Even if your complaints about western countries are accurate, all I said to start this was that invading a country, an act of war, is not an example of trying to avoid war, and all the rest of your assumptions about me are equal parts incorrect and insulting.
You are literally trying to justify the actions of the world's most prolific aggressor and claim that resistance to it is bad.
So yes, I am going to associate you with the world's most prolific aggressor until you stop supporting it.
You have literally come here to talk about how bad resistance to you is.
Well, that's obviously false at least on account of me pointing to the fact that you can't actually provide an alternative way to resist you, and your argument is reducible to 'resisting us is bad'.
What you did is claim that giving NATO years to cease aggression wasn't an attempt at avoiding a war.
You had every opportunity to prove me wrong by providing an alternative way to resist you. You took no opportunities to do so, even when prompted.
Saying that an armed invasion is an act of war and that acts of war are generally not good ways to avoid war is not claiming that resistance to aggression is bad. It is literally pointing out an act of aggression. According to the Budapest Memorandum, the deal for Ukraine giving up nukes was that Russia agrees to respect their sovereignty. And then Russia invaded Ukraine to annex territory. Twice now. I don't believe you're so stupid you can't grasp that, I think you're just that disingenuous.
I am not advocating that resistance to aggression is bad, and I think you know that.
So, was Russia giving NATO years to cease its aggression a bad way to avoid war or not?
Imagine not seeing international law as a joke in the year 2024.
And to defend against your aggression.
Notably, you are yet to provide any sort of alternative to resisting your aggression this way.
Riiiiight. You just completely coincidentally claim that instances of resistance to your aggression are bad. The only time you find resistance to you acceptable is when it's impotent.
The topic at hand was Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the context of attempting to avoid war. I made no direct comments about other topics, nor did I intend to imply anything beyond that. To quote the comment that sparked all of this:
Russia is responsible for their own actions. Regardless of the facts that form the basis for the decision, if their true goal is to avoid war in a region, the best solution is to not militarily invade that region. That's it. That's my full claim. You can try to argue about whether or not Russia was justified to invade, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Russia wanting to not fight in a region they attacked after making a deal to not invade that region.
Cool. You are yet to present any sort of argument for how giving NATO years to stop aggression was a bad way to avoid war.
Yeah. So, how was giving you years to stop your aggression a bad way to avoid war? How should have Russia approached this?
And you should be held responsible for your actions. The rest of the world has every right to resist you. You have no ground to tell the world how to resist you.
Russia gave you years to stop aggression. You didn't.
So, you decided to completely ignore what the person you were responding to was talking about, and you can't even provide a supposedly-better alternative way to respond to your aggression. Good to know.
The person whom you were responding about said that Russia did try to avoid war, which is true. Russia did give you years to stop your aggression. You keep pretending as if that did not happen.
You mean after NATO enacted a coup there and after NATO reneged on its promises to not do what it did, and after NATO tried to establish a military presence there to attack Russia?
Removed by mod