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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.