https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/us-bases-alert-level-russia.html
https://archive.ph/laVgN
Even the US' intelligence apparatus is a bunch of Putin shills now
But seriously, no shit lmao. Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?
They literally think the Russian brainpan is incapable of comprehending democracy due to them assimilating Mongolo-Asiatic authoritarianism genes in the time they were under Mongol rule so probably, yeah.
I heard literal this take ex cathedra in university in Poland. 30 years ago.
Damn. I haven't heard this one in uni but I had a professor who was casually peddling Spengler and some other sus figures.
Missed all the fun being out for the evening. I just want to inform you that I am not even exaggerating for comedic purposes that much, here is a random video found by typing "mongol influence on russian culture" on google and clicking the video tab. It features bangers such as "It has been several hundred years in their genetic inheritance that authoritarianism is the only solution".
https://youtu.be/5F45i0v_u6s?t=234
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Lol, this guy's entire post history is just him popping into random Hexbear threads to tell us how stupid he thinks we are and then refusing to engage anyone because he thinks we're too stupid for it to be worth his time. A very serious intellectual.
Have you read the comments in here? Lmao where do you guys come up with this nonsense?
be specific
if you're referring to the specific thing about Asians (and Russians in particular) having some inherent desire for authoritarian figures, I have personally seen this idea in the book Everything Flows by Vasily Grossman.
Oh, man, I hate Vasily Grossman. Life and Fate is on my shortlist for most overhyped book ever.
I actually kinda liked Everything Flows, the first half at least. The second half descends very quickly into incoherent anti-Russian/Soviet rants but the vignette about the Old Bolshevik being sent to the labor camp was very moving.
That one is a lot shorter so maybe I'll give it a shot when I'm in a forgiving mood or want to add to my unwritten essay about how annoying it is that only "dissident" literature gets translated.
Replying to a comment is not specific enough an example for you? Do you think I'm referring to a random comment in a different post or something?
Okay, so what about the comment do you take issue with? Do you not believe it is a widely-disseminated idea in the west that Russians & Asians are inherently predisposed toward authoritarianism?
are you going to keep doing the posturing "heh... you really believe that?" thing without any followup or are you going to admit your understanding is a rickety piece of shit that would fall over if somebody breathed on it?
I'm just sitting here having a good time laughing at all of you
Well we're getting a good laugh out of you.
So glad everyone is having such a good time!
if you're referring to the specific thing about Asians (and Russians in particular) having some inherent desire for authoritarian figures, I have personally seen this idea in the book Everything Flows by Vasily Grossman.
Is this a good enough reply? Why not engage with that part of their comment?
Like you’ve never heard a harebrained pundit draw a line through the tsars, the evil Soviets, and Putin to conclude “these people simply can not know our enlightened values”
Could you be more specific? Our asiatic brainpans don't handle vague, nonspecific insults well.
Don't be vague.
Air your specific objections so we can respond to them or get ready to get pig-poop-balled.
Are you intentionally being obtuse to avoid having to debate us? I made another comment with a specific example of what we're talking about, go respond to that.
Was that the oink oink comment, or was that someone else? All you guys devolve into the same responses so quickly it's hard to care.
Nah it's this
Also you opened with calling us "delusional" and not making any real argument. So it's weird you expected us to engage with total civility when you opened hostilely. But that's a double standard I kind of expect from Libs.
Oh there it is! The old fallback. Love it. Got any other catch phrases ready to over use?
What fallback? "Don't act like an asshole and then complain about how uncivil people are in response"?
Yeah that's a real ridiculous "fallback" there.
Got any other catch phrases ready to over use?
Death to america and all dogs of the US empire
Have you read the comments on
?It got so bad the mods banned using 'Orcs' as the term to refer to Russians with in the early days of the war. And many redditors cried about that.
We can argue the semantics of what exact type of dehumanizing language was used, but the overarching point remains.
Why in the world would I poison my eyes by going to that sub? Or even reddit at all.
Then what's your complaint here, exactly? People are shitposting and being somewhat hyperbolic, but a lot of liberals have considered Russians subhuman morons since at least the beginning of this war
Oh "it was a joke, bro" is used when being called out as ridiculous here? Ok then.
No one thinks anyone is subhuman, except you guys saying it about anyone you don't like.
What does Stormfront have to do with anything?
What are you on about?
People here are commenting that many liberals thought Russia was going to invade Europe, and that libs have considered Russians 'orcs' and generally stupid subhumans, that is where reddit comes in as it serves as a decent aggregate of liberal opinion.
No one thinks anyone is subhuman, except you guys saying it about anyone you don't like.
Reddit literally banned the term 'Orc' in early 2022 because Ukraine used it to refer to Russians and Redditors eagerly adopted it; you can also see how they've tried to subvert it in there and who knows how many other threads. Like this one.
It got used so much it literally has a 'slang' page on wikipedia.
Russia invading Europe was literally the position of much of NATO at the start, and they continue to just toss out ideas about it.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
No one thinks anyone is subhuman
Would you say Florence Gaub's statements suggest she sees Russians as less human?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I didn't realize that person was here on lemmy. And no I'm not going to watch a random YouTube video, thanks.
Why would I do that? I'd have to remove them from your mums ass first.
your mums ass first.
Pictured: what he was actually fingering.
spoiler
Starting shit on an obscure communist web forum is peak chad.
It's not random, it's a news interview with the Director of the Research Division at the NATO Defense College.
"brainpan" is a clear marker of making jokes about phrenology and race science ideology. Obviously no one is seriously explaining behavior in terms of brainpans in the modern day, but the argument goes that there is very little substantial difference between that and modern styles of "othering" used by modern definitely-not-fascists.
Why would you need to go to reddit when you could just browse your own post history
Because they know they can't get hit. These "Ban me! Ban me!" Libs are all the same. Pathetic losers who want to start fights, but too wimpy to finish them.
There's people here actually trying to engage you with examples and arguments but you're still just bitching that they asked you to provide more specific objections.
Lol yes you guys are well known for being exceptional debaters lmao
I mean, feel free to try and own us in a debate if your so confident about our lack of skills
at least attempt a specific criticism instead of just being vaguely contrarian it's annoying
Is that a good enough example for you, Di Vinci?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
please give us your answer for who you think is responsible for the NordStream 2 bombing so we can laugh at it
What do you think of (random event you could care less about)?
Random event? It was one of the most significant events of the war you dumbfuck.
Wars are not fought over resources and land, they're fought over principles and ideas. Therefore, the NordStream 2 bombing is irrelevant.
Careful, we've got lemmitors in this thread, the (in my opinion pretty obvious) irony of your comment might be lost on them
If the 19th century taught us anything it's that the idea is the most important development humanity has achieved.
I don't see why anyone is even bothering engaging this person with good faith. They're just "trolling" the same way people did back decades ago. Adding "lol" or "lmao" on to everything to pretend they're not upset, not reading anything, calling everyone stupid no matter what is said, always saying "I'm sitting here laughing at you" to again pretend they're not upset. They all ended up being incels and I wouldn't be surprised if this is no different
Look at that username, 100% chance this person is either an incel, or an edgy teenager who will become an incel.
Hello I'm a fellow
good germanliberal and I don't want to be infected with commie nonsense, can you point out the nonsense please so I can avoid it?
just ban these delusional trashlib already, after countless attempts at engagement all this idiot has ever done is smugly laugh and pretend he's smarter than everyone else.
I particularly love the fact that libs simultaneously believe that Russia is on a brink of collapse and about to roll over Europe as soon as it's done with Ukraine. They see no contradiction there.
Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?
Yes. You should see the bullshit the European media keeps shoveling.
I barely even read any Polish media since 2022, they went into high gear of being unbearable and keeps at it ever since.
It's completely identical under PO. Russophobia is universal in Polish public spaces.
Being elevated by the USSR and the People's Republic really made their fascists mald didn't it?
Yes, we got propelled to modernity by socialism and they will never forgive it for that.
Well I'm malding over 1989 and the round table... Jesus I'll fucking never forgive them for what they've done to NFZ and well, the entire country...
NFZ is shit by design, a more responsible version of catastrophic Kasy Chorych which only puprose was to crash and privatize healthcare. We should just return to direct budget financing. Same with retirement funds. May the buzek govt rot in hell, the 4 reforms were almost as catastrophic as the transformation itself.
Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?
They did unironically think that, yes.
Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe
they definitely do here in europe
in February of 2022 Biden said that he was trying to reestablish the Soviet Union.
He has also said that he is proud to have been the first black woman to serve with a black president.
In general, I would not associate Biden with the word 'intelligence'.
And yeah, no, if Putin was trying to reestablish the USSR, he would be much better than he is. An anti-colonial power that massively improves its people's lives? Sign me up.
I wasn't referring to his commentary on intelligence, I was referring to his commentary on "the libs"
Considering that Biden is a lib, your reply, at best, supports the comment that you were replying to.
Furthermore, you seem to think that this point about Biden somehow contradicts the fact that 'NY Times just casually dropped that the official U.S. intelligence assessment has always been that Putin didn't want to expand the Ukraine conflict beyond Ukraine'
I didn't comment on the post to refute it, I replied to a comment to refute the comment. that's how threads work. anyway
comment: "Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?"
me: this lib certainly said he thought so.
that's how conversations work.
He also said he'd seen photographic proof that Hamas had decapitated 40 babies.
He also said he would cure cancer, I am not joking.
this lib certainly said he thought so.
Most of us are pretty skeptical he actually did think so, especially considering a lot of experts in his circle have said things that contradict it. Case in point: the article being discussed.
I didn't comment on the post to refute it, I replied to a comment to refute the comment
And all you did is support - not refute - the comment. Just as I said here:
Considering that Biden is a lib, your reply, at best, supports the comment that you were replying to
comment: "Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?"
me: this lib certainly said he thought so.Case in point.
Haha. It's nice that you recognise how much you embarrassed yourself.
He also managed to mumble this out during the debate a week ago, too. However, we can't be sure Biden even knows what year it is, so it's unclear if he still believes this hilarious lie or if he thinks it's 2022.
Ögedei didn't even tried to take Europe, it was a really big scout party which casually obliterated every army they encountered, arrived at Hungary, seen the pushta and considered staying because it reminded them of home and then went back because khan died and new one had to be elected. In the meantime collective Europe was thrown into a state of abject terror not known since Attila the Hun. But of course as soon as it passed, islamophobia kicked in, they started to blabber about Prester John and tried to use Mongols against muslims.
Still not as embarrassing as
admitting the Minsk agreements were all just to buy time for Ukraine.The original narratives about Ukraine no longer matter, the only thing left in the collective consciousness is Ukraine is a democracy therefore the war is about "western values". The good thing is since then even a good part liberals don't care about that anymore, its impossible to manufacture a narrative that Ukraine is winning right now, at best they "resisting" evil Putler and Zelensky does nothing but beg for more aid.
The Western media's admission of the deceitful nature of their narrative exposed liberals, who mindlessly parrot the same talking points despite the revelations, as nothing more than gullible buffoons.
I don't think liberals could have had a worse week. The cracks in their dome are apparent and aren't going away. Some people are checking out, some people are saying "enough" to the constant stream of bullshit right to their faces. /R/politics is a hoot right now.
But do they change anything about their approach? Of course not.
I expect that at some point the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down.
i might have thought so a few years back but now i feel like there is no end to their ability to mental contortion and gymnastics
I mean, for them to stop believing in their ideology, they'd have to find something else to believe in. What would that even be? Most of them are probably innoculated against ideas left of Mussolini due to the constant government programming happening on reddit, so they'd either become anarchobidenists and believe 95% of the same things by saying to themselves "anarchism is when you hate authoritarian governments (read: governments who are resistant to being totally rolled over by American monopolies) and love western democracies. who the fuck is kropotkin? gelderloos? I'm listening to a 3 hour video essay by a breadtuber"
or, I guess, they'd turn even further conservative and/or libertarian and start frothing at the mouth about the federal reserve and age of consent laws
In my observations on Libs, I think the biggest challenge for them is that they fundamentally trust the institutions that govern our society. In order to believe in something else, they would have to break that trust on a fundamental level. But that trust underpins their entire worldview, so in doing so they would not only have to fundamentally alter their core values, but also in doing to have to admit that they have been wrong about everything their entire lives. That's a pretty tall order.
I'd argue that mainstream libs represent the segment of the population that still hasn't been significantly affected materially. They still have their jobs, they can pay their bills, and there really hasn't been any dramatic change in their lifestyle. They also tend to stay in their bubble avoiding interaction with people who are struggling. This segment of the population is rapidly shrinking though, and we can see them starting to freaking out that their voices are increasingly challenged nowadays. It's a huge shock for them that their narrative can't spread unchallenged.
They're gonna continue to childishly point fingers at everyone else. "All the mistakes I have made and continue to make are because of the chyna-ruzzia-woke-tankie-bots"
No, it was always this way. We always knew this. The way the government is admitting things are is the same as what they've been saying all along. Your left-wing views always make you say paranoid stuff like this. This is not an unexpected departure from the official line. The only people who were trying to scare us about how Europe could be invaded next were misinformed marginal figures, not the actual authority figures who always had a reassuring firm grip and level gaze toward reality. If it were really a big change then someone would make a big deal about it, and I don't see anybody making a fuss.
lol who told you that
"He has much larger ambitions than Ukraine. He wants to, in fact, reestablish the former Soviet Union. That's what this is about." -President Joe Biden, February 24, 2022.
he trotted this out at the disastrous debate last week too. blows my mind the kind of bullshit people can tolerate
this isn't even about tolerating, this guy just completely made this claim up that no Democratic leader claimed Putin wanted to go beyond ukraine. and people just upvoted them without even looking at it
Okay you're having a lot of trouble so I will help you out here: my initial comment was sarcasm or parody or whatever you want to call it.
god you guys are morons, no surprise though i remember you getting dunked on like 6 days ago Pit Hag titties
It's still in the modlog and pretty funny. The "nice try kid" is some peak Reddit speak.
nice try https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/093b1a2b-06ca-4670-af72-2a46bac73167.png
- Show
Show
Those are two different comments you disingenuous toad.
You might want to check out the hidden gem eighteen fourty nine by JoJo Joestar.
Reminds me of the Bush defenders who pretended his administration never said Saddam had a hand in Sept. 11.
I wish I could be amused my lemmy liberals taking this seriously
The shit about world conqueror Putin reached my, decidedly non American lib parents. This shit is bananas
If you use an ounce of critical thinking it was always clear NATO wants a war with Russia, not the other way around.
To be fair, if you use an ounce of critical thinking then you stop being a liberal.
Yeah, no shit. These pathetic
vassals don’t care though, they’ll keep throwing money down the pit of “increased defense spending because NATO wants it”.Is that how you read it? In my head their username is "Yog-... Is that even an o? y- ahhh fuck it, the cosmonaut"
I thought they were letters from another alphabet or something, had no idea they were just another font.
It's the thing where similar-looking letters are taken from other alphabets to make fancy looking letters. The not-O there is a Greek letter, for example, specifically I think it's lowercase Sigma.
Ironically, given Yog is a Russophone and people do this with Cyrillic all the time, much to the chagrin of those who can read Cyrillic.
A very mean, and sometimes fun, trick to play on others in a collaborative programming environment is to randomly replace semicolons with Greek question marks and watch them slowly descend into madness during debugging.
Captcha: Type these letters (and its just ones, capital I's and lowercase l's in that font where they all look the same)
The not-O there is a Greek letter, for example, specifically I think it's lowercase Sigma
As a person with a math degree (meaning that I'm an expert on the Greek alphabet), I confirm, that is lowercase sigma.
i just go by the avatars for pretty much any user who has one lol
Death to America
I can't wait for the NAFO crowd to call the pentagon russian shills
if i were a lemm.ee (لا سمح الله) and I saw this thread and the idiots that post here I would delete my account out of shame
Look. We HAVE to shoot up a grocery store in order to stop the Soviets. It’s for the greater good.
Wait, but that would mean all the libs saying that Putin would invade everyone if he wins in Ukraine were brainwashed liars???
I'm not trying to get flamed as a lib here, but there's a gulf of difference between "not wanting to expand the war" and "having no further ambition once the war is over"
There is no indication that Russia has any military ambitions past Ukraine, and it's pretty clear that Russia tried very hard to prevent the situation in Ukraine from devolving into a war.
I'm not arguing either of these points, I'm just pointing out that all NYT is saying here is that US officials have always believed that Russia wants this war to stay contained to Ukraine. Not that they think Russia didn't want this war or that Russia doesn't have other interests it will pursue external to this war.
All I'm saying is NYT didn't really reveal anything here.
There are plenty of people running around saying that once Russia wins in Ukraine than it's going to go on a conquest of Europe. This has been one of the major justifications for continuing the war lately.
That's true, but that does imply that this war would conclude first. Which is consistent with saying Russia does not want this conflict to expand beyond Ukraine.
I mean... That's true in that Russia tried to win before Ukraine could mount a significant resistance. Attacking in the first place was pretty clearly an act of war, though, so it feels a bit disingenuous to claim Russia wanted to avoid a war when they... Started... A war...
All it really says is that Russia thought they were strong enough to steamroll Ukraine. Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place or retreating when faced with actual resistance.
Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place
Okay, so, consider this: the most prolific aggressor in the world, one which has been carrying out invasions around the world, inducing crises, enacting coups, killing millions, and which has broken its promise to not expand to your border, carried out a coup in a neighbouring country and is trying to set up a military force there against you in a blatant act of aggression. What do you do?
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?
Reads like projection, especially considering how the NATO freaks have been publicly salivating over those dumbassed balkanized Russia maps and publicly posting their plans via military think tanks
