Per the other reply to you, you might recall when I went over our consensus perspective on Ukraine, how it is motivated by understanding the best possible outcome for Ukrainian lives and contrasting this with the bloodthirsty liberal approach you've supported (all dressed up in "concern").
Is it the "uninformed" and life-devaluing comments you're referring to?
I love the combination of insults and degrading what I said while suggesting you never even read it (as you announced you were blocking the instance. Incidentally, instance-level blocking wasn't possible at the time, to my knowledge. That's part of Lemmy v0.19.x.
But not to worry! I'll just share what I said with you again. Be sure to explain how it's uninformed, stupid, and devalues Ukrainian lives! I'm just too big of a dum-dum to figure it out.
whataboutism
It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
Minsk 2, like we don't know Russian army went in there with heavy weapons in 2014 and sponsored separatists
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
that by helping the attacked invaded country, the west is somehow making it worse?
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
So what you have is the same things all over again? Why are you doubling down on your own stupidity?
You said you forgot it, lol. It seems like you right now and you a few hours ago need to hash it out and determine whether you remember what I said.
Whataboutism is of course not a way to deflect any criticism. It's a fallacy. Double standard? What are you 5? Of course there is a double standard. Damn, you should get a medal for being last to arrive.
Smartest commenter in the room isn't familiar with formal vs. informal fallacies and that the latter are part of basically all argumentation.
Do you think being inconsistent and hoodwinked by propaganda is cool and good? You seem to be a really big fan of it and call people names when they aren't on board.
About Minsk 2 is not whataboutism because it refers to the same actual thing. That's not how it works.
It's not the same thing though. It was pointed out that the West didn't abide by Minsk II and your response was to say what about Russia though. No defense at all of what was accused, just switch focus to what your perceived opponent did. lol.
Sounds like you're not a fan of a perceived double standard! Fallacy! [Insult]!
There is more than enuguh evidence for Russian army supporting seperatists and going into donbas themselves.
Go find some then! And pay attention to the dates! Also remind yourself of what I said about Russians in Donbas because you seem to have already forgotten it.
You speak of the west a lot like there is an entity called " the west". You are so naive, it shows you no idea at all how diplomacy and international relations with work.
There's the US hegemony with its European clients that together call themselves "the west", lol. It's not like I made it up. I'm using terms most people will understand. Well except you, as you have a compulsion to piss on the carpet.
Ukraine is fighting for itself. There is no evil west there.
Minsk II was negotiated with Western mediators who were themselves primary diplomatic contacts for enforcement and disputes. This is why Putin was talking to Macron and Merkel, lol. I'm sure you're aware of this, right? You seem exasperated by having to explain the basics to these tankies, right?
One should also understand that Ukraine is a very weak country that was subjected to Western meddling after Euromaidan. While there's much to be said of it, the easiest way for those for whom this is new information to get a quick handle on it is to listen to the recordings of Nuland. A good listen, especially when it's for the first time - but that couldn't be you!
They are fighting am occupying army. They would do it either way, if they got the help from anyone or not.
This paragraph doesn't address what I said at all. The point is that Ukraine is going to lose and sending more weapons rather than negotiating just stacks Ukrainian bodies (it is premised on falsehoods about Ukraine's ability to succeed). More people, including Ukrainians, die by propping up the illusion of eventual victory.
The actual reason that lie is spread is because of the real value to the West: attempting to hurt Russia. The position you're supporting is to trade Ukrainian dead for Russian dead. Bloodthirsty and callous. My position is to end it as soon as possible, i.e. fewer dead, including UA dead.
Now queue the pretzel logic of how escalations and avoiding diplomacy and lies of victory will somehow lead to fewer dead Ukrainians. How is that summer offensive going? Do you like the outcome of virtually zero progress on anything except dead Ukrainians and Russians? I don't.
They are just doing it far better with better weapons. If they didn't have them they would still fight.
A Ukraine that wasn't getting this sham treatment would be negotiating.
They might totally be occupied, then they would fight like partisans and do terrorist actions. That is the situation. That is the alternative. Not some happy little world you imagine.
Oh? Is a happy little world what I described?
America sure like Russia being trashed with their old discontinued weapons they would have to pay lots of money to dispose otherwise. America spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year just for Russia on their military budget. Basically their whole military budget was there because of Russia. Now they are being trashed for peanuts. That's the biggest strategic win America had in decades.
Oh, so one reason the war is being escalated so that the US can serve its own interests, including cycling weapons inventory? Some might say, the West?
You're almost there. Don't forget that the US couples this with new military contracts at home and debt in UA!
But thinking that this is all the is is also naive. Because America is not one child person that feels one emotion. Diplomats are thinking about what happens after the war and it's a very difficult situation to defeat Russia in a way that doesn't create more problems later.
Problems for themselves are the only ones they'd care about. There is no limit to the number of Slavic lives they'd sacrifice.
Though I do think I need to remind you that at no point have I suggested the only interest the US has is in sending weapons so it can feed its own MIC. I actually suggested several, even though I have no pretense of having listed an exhaustive set! See if you identify them! Here's a freebie: in my exact reply on this I pointed out that UA is taking on debts.
And Russia is losing, there is no doubt about it.
Ahahahahahahahahaha
That's not from some main stream media that you hate so much, you would rather listen to Moscow media.
What time is it in Moscow!? I'm sure this is a hit on Reddit.
That's coming from war analysts, economists.
People that are classically uninvolved in propaganda narratives and are usuallycorrect. Incidentally, both of those groups have people who think exactly the opposite thing as well. Can you imagine!?
Oh and btw since I know you love talking about fallacies: appeal to authority. I'd loooove to see you figure out how to read and analyze any media or experts at all without using it, lol.
That's coming from the change in tone of Russian propagandists.
The tone of Russian propagandists hasn't really changed. It's almost boring.
That's coming from Putin asking north freaking Korea for help
Oh? Is that what happened? Please describe it without mentioning the cycling of old weapons stockpiles, since we agree on whose interests that benefits, right?
The world is chaos and most of the time things happen for the most banal reasons. Like a lunatic that finds a reason to invade another country in a minority that lives there, like the sudeten Germans.
You think Nazi expansionism was just one crazy guy's idea? lol
Love to hear ahistorical Great Man Theory in condescensing lib posts.
Sometimes when you want to see if you are on the right sight of history, check who your comrades are. Yours are the extreme right, trump, Orban, kim jon um,....
How are they my comrades?
So, anyways, you forgot to do the one thing you were asked to do. Tell me how our position is uninformed and devalues Ukrainian life. You did manage to call the ideas stupid but had facile or ignorant points every time, but I'll give you partial credit for trying.
On that topic, it's been 20 days and you still haven't managed to produce an answer; what are the "bizzare arguments" from hexbears, and how have they been "debunked so many times" ?
Removed by mod
You mean our informed comments that actually value the lives of Ukrainians?
natocels stay mad
No I mean your disgusting uninformed coments that don't value life at all and make fun out of people that are fighting for their lives.
Per the other reply to you, you might recall when I went over our consensus perspective on Ukraine, how it is motivated by understanding the best possible outcome for Ukrainian lives and contrasting this with the bloodthirsty liberal approach you've supported (all dressed up in "concern").
Is it the "uninformed" and life-devaluing comments you're referring to?
Tell me, what was your reply to that explanation?
Removed by mod
I love the combination of insults and degrading what I said while suggesting you never even read it (as you announced you were blocking the instance. Incidentally, instance-level blocking wasn't possible at the time, to my knowledge. That's part of Lemmy v0.19.x.
But not to worry! I'll just share what I said with you again. Be sure to explain how it's uninformed, stupid, and devalues Ukrainian lives! I'm just too big of a dum-dum to figure it out.
It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
Removed by mod
You said you forgot it, lol. It seems like you right now and you a few hours ago need to hash it out and determine whether you remember what I said.
Smartest commenter in the room isn't familiar with formal vs. informal fallacies and that the latter are part of basically all argumentation.
Do you think being inconsistent and hoodwinked by propaganda is cool and good? You seem to be a really big fan of it and call people names when they aren't on board.
It's not the same thing though. It was pointed out that the West didn't abide by Minsk II and your response was to say what about Russia though. No defense at all of what was accused, just switch focus to what your perceived opponent did. lol.
Sounds like you're not a fan of a perceived double standard! Fallacy! [Insult]!
Go find some then! And pay attention to the dates! Also remind yourself of what I said about Russians in Donbas because you seem to have already forgotten it.
There's the US hegemony with its European clients that together call themselves "the west", lol. It's not like I made it up. I'm using terms most people will understand. Well except you, as you have a compulsion to piss on the carpet.
Minsk II was negotiated with Western mediators who were themselves primary diplomatic contacts for enforcement and disputes. This is why Putin was talking to Macron and Merkel, lol. I'm sure you're aware of this, right? You seem exasperated by having to explain the basics to these tankies, right?
One should also understand that Ukraine is a very weak country that was subjected to Western meddling after Euromaidan. While there's much to be said of it, the easiest way for those for whom this is new information to get a quick handle on it is to listen to the recordings of Nuland. A good listen, especially when it's for the first time - but that couldn't be you!
This paragraph doesn't address what I said at all. The point is that Ukraine is going to lose and sending more weapons rather than negotiating just stacks Ukrainian bodies (it is premised on falsehoods about Ukraine's ability to succeed). More people, including Ukrainians, die by propping up the illusion of eventual victory.
The actual reason that lie is spread is because of the real value to the West: attempting to hurt Russia. The position you're supporting is to trade Ukrainian dead for Russian dead. Bloodthirsty and callous. My position is to end it as soon as possible, i.e. fewer dead, including UA dead.
Now queue the pretzel logic of how escalations and avoiding diplomacy and lies of victory will somehow lead to fewer dead Ukrainians. How is that summer offensive going? Do you like the outcome of virtually zero progress on anything except dead Ukrainians and Russians? I don't.
A Ukraine that wasn't getting this sham treatment would be negotiating.
Oh? Is a happy little world what I described?
Oh, so one reason the war is being escalated so that the US can serve its own interests, including cycling weapons inventory? Some might say, the West?
You're almost there. Don't forget that the US couples this with new military contracts at home and debt in UA!
Problems for themselves are the only ones they'd care about. There is no limit to the number of Slavic lives they'd sacrifice.
Though I do think I need to remind you that at no point have I suggested the only interest the US has is in sending weapons so it can feed its own MIC. I actually suggested several, even though I have no pretense of having listed an exhaustive set! See if you identify them! Here's a freebie: in my exact reply on this I pointed out that UA is taking on debts.
Ahahahahahahahahaha
What time is it in Moscow!? I'm sure this is a hit on Reddit.
People that are classically uninvolved in propaganda narratives and are usuallycorrect. Incidentally, both of those groups have people who think exactly the opposite thing as well. Can you imagine!?
Oh and btw since I know you love talking about fallacies: appeal to authority. I'd loooove to see you figure out how to read and analyze any media or experts at all without using it, lol.
The tone of Russian propagandists hasn't really changed. It's almost boring.
Oh? Is that what happened? Please describe it without mentioning the cycling of old weapons stockpiles, since we agree on whose interests that benefits, right?
You think Nazi expansionism was just one crazy guy's idea? lol
Love to hear ahistorical Great Man Theory in condescensing lib posts.
How are they my comrades?
So, anyways, you forgot to do the one thing you were asked to do. Tell me how our position is uninformed and devalues Ukrainian life. You did manage to call the ideas stupid but had facile or ignorant points every time, but I'll give you partial credit for trying.
lol
ETA: Also gotta love the "they're looking to NORTH KOREA for help" as if this is an obviously and on its face evil bad terrible thing to do.
On that topic, it's been 20 days and you still haven't managed to produce an answer; what are the "bizzare arguments" from hexbears, and how have they been "debunked so many times" ?
Removed by mod
If it was me I would simply not die for a country thst didn't appreciate me. Follow your bliss I guess tho
Why not discuss your perspective on the international news megathread
The ones about how America will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian?
Removed by mod