Can you provide a link to a page which shows the text of these agreements? Or maybe the Wikipedia pages of some of the specific agreements you are referring to?
So you’ve done the playing dumb part of your script, and legitimizing Wikipedia as a credible source. Now you’ll move onto the part of, ‘actually I know all about those, and here’s why they don’t count.’
Nice job trying to pre-empt any criticism of your position because you know by your own admission that the role of the Minsk Agreements has been debunked repeatedly. That’s also why you didn’t mention them by name to begin with.
But no, I was not going to say that, because that would be engaging in a “did not” “did too” slap fight which will ultimately end up going nowhere. I prefer to take at face value whatever you guys claim, and then ask questions about the details of your position until we get somewhere where you’d have to admit that your position is inconsistent with itself, that you claim two or more contradictory things to be true at the same time. Usually at that point there is either no more reply or some crazy deflection.
So answer me this, if you can: Why did the violation of the Minsk Agreements make Putin decide to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine instead of more negotiations to stop the fighting? Is peace not the ultimate and most important goal?
There it is. Seriously, you NAFO bots need a new script. The playing dumb part of it makes you stand out like a sore thumb.
You’re still doing it, too. Pretending you’re not aware of any of the facts or historical context outside of your comment. Which if I then bring up, then you’ll suddenly be aware of those too so that you can argue against it. I’ve done this back and forth with you turds too many times to be caught off guard. And you haven’t changed your methodology in a couple of years.
Is the intention that you don’t want to reveal too much incriminating info for Ukraine and the west? Like only acknowledge them to argue against them, and hope they’re not brought up at all?
The historical context is clear enough that there is no need to talk about any of it: the current events are a continuation of centuries of Russian expansionist imperialist aggression. Their excuses may change but the fact of Russian imperialism does not.
It’s an interesting “coup” when the government before and after the coup is the exact same, and only one official left the country of his own volition. When you say “nazis”, do you mean in the commonly understood sense of “fascist ultranationalists” or in the Russian sense of “anyone who has any grievances with Russia for any reason whatsoever”? There is no evidence of genocide in the Donbas other than that Russia said so. Why does Russia have to care about NATO at its borders, what’s the problem?
But this is exactly the kind of “did not” “did too” kind of slap fight I have little interest in because all of the points have been made a million times already.
Even if all of what Russia claims about Ukraine was true, none if it is justification for Russia to invade and annex parts of the country. All excuses for imperialist expansion.
A shame, really, that Russia has gone down this path. It could be a wealthy, flourishing, respected country if after the fall of the Soviet Union it had made friends instead of enemies, like most other post-Soviet states have done and are better off for it. But of course Russia couldn’t do that: Russian imperialism is forever.
Russia invade inspite of not just agreements, actual treaties, which guarantee Ukraine the liberty to conduct their own foreign policy as they pleased in exchange for their nuclear arsenal.
Except those treaties and agreements were broken by Ukraine and NATO years before the Russian invasion. And every foreign policy expert advised against it at the time. Even Henry Kissinger warned the west was intentionally trying to provoke an invasion from Russia, and not honoring the agreements.
Those bombs are blowing up people in Ukraine, statistically in America’s conflicts, it’s like 10 civilians to 140 for every “enemy combatant”, and I doubt the Ukrainian conscripts are more disciplined and trained than America is.
Do you genuinely believe America has any interest at all in improving conditions for the people of Ukraine? Has that been true one single time since WWII?
There’s 3 parties here who can unilaterally end the war that has killed or wounded over a million and displaced millions more, America, Russia, and Ukraine.
Its only choice is how many of it’s kids they want to send into a meatgrinder trying to hold onto the Russian-speaking territories whose people it didn’t seem to like very much before the invasion, and it seems to like even less now.
There’s no realistic way for Ukraine to push Russia out, let alone deal with the resulting insurgency. Same applies if Russia tried to hold the Ukrainian-majority territories. Actually they’re probably in for an insurgency either way given their conduct.
Also if an asshole came up to you, shot you in the leg and demanded your house, how would you react when people around you said “just give him the garden and cellar as compromise”
Ever heard of an analogy? Also you were the one saying Ukraine should just yield to the imperialist power invading their country, puppet
Edit:
My brother in Christ, what does my country have to do with this? At least you saw your own bullshit and deleted it, if only you had the same realization about the other shit you spew
Mate, the only thing you have to say is that Ukraine is getting fucked over left and right. Instead you find the strangest ways to twist that into apologizing for Russian imperialist interests.
statistically in America’s conflicts, it’s like 10 civilians to 140 for every “enemy combatant”, and I doubt the Ukrainian conscripts are more disciplined and trained than America is
Surely you understand the very different nature of America’s recent conflicts (air strikes on small numbers of militants living among civilians) to the war in Ukraine (frontlines where civilians have been evacuated and every building has been destroyed). Or taking your numbers of 10 to 140 civilians for every enemy combatant, are you suggesting that Ukrainian soldiers have killed on the order of a million to ten million civilians as “collateral damage”?
Do you genuinely believe America has any interest at all in improving conditions for the people of Ukraine?
I believe that is irrelevant to the Ukrainians. They are happy to get any support they can to help fight off their would-be oppressors. Whether or not America is interested in improving the conditions for the people of Ukraine, it only takes one look at Russia and then at the EU to see where the common people have a better standard of living.
There’s 3 parties here who can unilaterally end the war that has killed or wounded over a million and displaced millions more, America, Russia, and Ukraine.
Of those three, only Russia can end the war unilaterally with no downsides to any party. Ukraine can only end the war unilaterally if they want to be subjugated under Russian oppression. I fail to see how America could end the war unilaterally. Even if they cut all military support to Ukraine, Ukrainians will keep fighting because they do not want to be ruled by Russia.
It is when those bombs are actively helping to stop Russian imperialism.
Removed by mod
Can you provide a link to a page which shows the text of these agreements? Or maybe the Wikipedia pages of some of the specific agreements you are referring to?
The Minsk Agreements.
So you’ve done the playing dumb part of your script, and legitimizing Wikipedia as a credible source. Now you’ll move onto the part of, ‘actually I know all about those, and here’s why they don’t count.’
You guys need a new script.
Nice job trying to pre-empt any criticism of your position because you know by your own admission that the role of the Minsk Agreements has been debunked repeatedly. That’s also why you didn’t mention them by name to begin with.
But no, I was not going to say that, because that would be engaging in a “did not” “did too” slap fight which will ultimately end up going nowhere. I prefer to take at face value whatever you guys claim, and then ask questions about the details of your position until we get somewhere where you’d have to admit that your position is inconsistent with itself, that you claim two or more contradictory things to be true at the same time. Usually at that point there is either no more reply or some crazy deflection.
So answer me this, if you can: Why did the violation of the Minsk Agreements make Putin decide to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine instead of more negotiations to stop the fighting? Is peace not the ultimate and most important goal?
There it is. Seriously, you NAFO bots need a new script. The playing dumb part of it makes you stand out like a sore thumb.
You’re still doing it, too. Pretending you’re not aware of any of the facts or historical context outside of your comment. Which if I then bring up, then you’ll suddenly be aware of those too so that you can argue against it. I’ve done this back and forth with you turds too many times to be caught off guard. And you haven’t changed your methodology in a couple of years.
Is the intention that you don’t want to reveal too much incriminating info for Ukraine and the west? Like only acknowledge them to argue against them, and hope they’re not brought up at all?
The historical context is clear enough that there is no need to talk about any of it: the current events are a continuation of centuries of Russian expansionist imperialist aggression. Their excuses may change but the fact of Russian imperialism does not.
Removed by mod
It’s an interesting “coup” when the government before and after the coup is the exact same, and only one official left the country of his own volition. When you say “nazis”, do you mean in the commonly understood sense of “fascist ultranationalists” or in the Russian sense of “anyone who has any grievances with Russia for any reason whatsoever”? There is no evidence of genocide in the Donbas other than that Russia said so. Why does Russia have to care about NATO at its borders, what’s the problem?
But this is exactly the kind of “did not” “did too” kind of slap fight I have little interest in because all of the points have been made a million times already.
Even if all of what Russia claims about Ukraine was true, none if it is justification for Russia to invade and annex parts of the country. All excuses for imperialist expansion.
A shame, really, that Russia has gone down this path. It could be a wealthy, flourishing, respected country if after the fall of the Soviet Union it had made friends instead of enemies, like most other post-Soviet states have done and are better off for it. But of course Russia couldn’t do that: Russian imperialism is forever.
Russia invade inspite of not just agreements, actual treaties, which guarantee Ukraine the liberty to conduct their own foreign policy as they pleased in exchange for their nuclear arsenal.
Except those treaties and agreements were broken by Ukraine and NATO years before the Russian invasion. And every foreign policy expert advised against it at the time. Even Henry Kissinger warned the west was intentionally trying to provoke an invasion from Russia, and not honoring the agreements.
And how where they broken by Ukraine?
Removed by mod
You guys really removed that?
Removed by mod
“Westoids” opinion discarded.
Those bombs are blowing up people in Ukraine, statistically in America’s conflicts, it’s like 10 civilians to 140 for every “enemy combatant”, and I doubt the Ukrainian conscripts are more disciplined and trained than America is.
Do you genuinely believe America has any interest at all in improving conditions for the people of Ukraine? Has that been true one single time since WWII?
There’s 3 parties here who can unilaterally end the war that has killed or wounded over a million and displaced millions more, America, Russia, and Ukraine.
Oh, how can Ukraine end the war without essentially giving up and letting Russia win territories through this imperialistic war?
Its only choice is how many of it’s kids they want to send into a meatgrinder trying to hold onto the Russian-speaking territories whose people it didn’t seem to like very much before the invasion, and it seems to like even less now.
There’s no realistic way for Ukraine to push Russia out, let alone deal with the resulting insurgency. Same applies if Russia tried to hold the Ukrainian-majority territories. Actually they’re probably in for an insurgency either way given their conduct.
Lots of words for saying “they can’t”
Removed by mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Also if an asshole came up to you, shot you in the leg and demanded your house, how would you react when people around you said “just give him the garden and cellar as compromise”
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ever heard of an analogy? Also you were the one saying Ukraine should just yield to the imperialist power invading their country, puppet
Edit:
My brother in Christ, what does my country have to do with this? At least you saw your own bullshit and deleted it, if only you had the same realization about the other shit you spew
Removed by mod
Mate, the only thing you have to say is that Ukraine is getting fucked over left and right. Instead you find the strangest ways to twist that into apologizing for Russian imperialist interests.
because capitulation always works … i forget, didn’t we try that before? oh yeah in the 40s… that worked out great
you can’t let the bully get what they want otherwise they won’t stop
Surely you understand the very different nature of America’s recent conflicts (air strikes on small numbers of militants living among civilians) to the war in Ukraine (frontlines where civilians have been evacuated and every building has been destroyed). Or taking your numbers of 10 to 140 civilians for every enemy combatant, are you suggesting that Ukrainian soldiers have killed on the order of a million to ten million civilians as “collateral damage”?
I believe that is irrelevant to the Ukrainians. They are happy to get any support they can to help fight off their would-be oppressors. Whether or not America is interested in improving the conditions for the people of Ukraine, it only takes one look at Russia and then at the EU to see where the common people have a better standard of living.
Of those three, only Russia can end the war unilaterally with no downsides to any party. Ukraine can only end the war unilaterally if they want to be subjugated under Russian oppression. I fail to see how America could end the war unilaterally. Even if they cut all military support to Ukraine, Ukrainians will keep fighting because they do not want to be ruled by Russia.