After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Western leaders? Name them.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Because Russia attacked them.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
Pretending this just didn’t happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Yes, it was and there’s overwhelming evidence for it.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that’s showing any signs of being exhausted:
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN’s original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it’s definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
The foundations of my beliefs are that the west saw itself as the winner of the cold war after USSR dissolved, and decided to renege on all the promises that were made in the 90s. This created increasing tensions with Russia, and eventually led to the war we’re seeing play out in Ukraine. This is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and it’s following the script that was outlined by RAND.
The west made a huge miscalculation thinking that it could defeat Russia militarily and economically, and now the whole thing is starting to backfire. NATO is finding that it lacks the industrial base to sustain the conflict. Russia managed to reroute its trade away from the west, which caused immeasurable economic damage to Europe. The world outside the G7 has been increasingly aligning towards Russia and China and away from the west. This proxy war is heralding the end of the unipolar moment that US enjoyed and ushering in multipolarity.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Have you considered that this might be why you still think that Ukraine is winning despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
Every mainstream western outlet, including the IMF, agrees that Russian economy is growing. No serious economists dispute this.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
Mearsheimer is just one example, and he is a preeminent political scientist in the US. The reality is that there is propaganda in the west just like there is in Russia, and western media often omits covering things that RT covers. Simply dismissing information based on the source is frankly absurd.
Incidentally, Mearsheimer gave an entire lecture back in 2014 predicting the events in Ukraine that are currently unfolding, seems to me that he might know what he’s talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.
After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Western leaders? Name them.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Because Russia attacked them.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
It’s not.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
Russian propaganda talking point.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Ah yes, Russian propaganda point as reported by CNN back in 2014 https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
There’s even an hour long documentary from France on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
Pretending this just didn’t happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, it was and there’s overwhelming evidence for it.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that’s showing any signs of being exhausted:
and here’s some recent mainstream media reporting on the state of the war for you to chew on
and here’s some analysis from military strategists for you
Russia will win this war, and the only thing the west has achieved was to help destroy Ukraine by sabotaging negotiations in 2022.
do you perhaps support Turkish annexation of greece?
Do you perhaps make bad faith arguments when you have nothing of value to add to the discussion?
Thanks.
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN’s original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Characterizing the Influence of Confirmation Bias on Web Search Behavior It’s not just you, Google Search really has gotten worse
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it’s definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
Pollution Reveals What Russian Statistics Obscure: Industrial Decline Russian Economic Optimism Is Based on Suspect Data
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
The fact that the west was deeply involved in the coup is well documented even in western media
The foundations of my beliefs are that the west saw itself as the winner of the cold war after USSR dissolved, and decided to renege on all the promises that were made in the 90s. This created increasing tensions with Russia, and eventually led to the war we’re seeing play out in Ukraine. This is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and it’s following the script that was outlined by RAND.
The west made a huge miscalculation thinking that it could defeat Russia militarily and economically, and now the whole thing is starting to backfire. NATO is finding that it lacks the industrial base to sustain the conflict. Russia managed to reroute its trade away from the west, which caused immeasurable economic damage to Europe. The world outside the G7 has been increasingly aligning towards Russia and China and away from the west. This proxy war is heralding the end of the unipolar moment that US enjoyed and ushering in multipolarity.
Have you considered that this might be why you still think that Ukraine is winning despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Every mainstream western outlet, including the IMF, agrees that Russian economy is growing. No serious economists dispute this.
Mearsheimer is just one example, and he is a preeminent political scientist in the US. The reality is that there is propaganda in the west just like there is in Russia, and western media often omits covering things that RT covers. Simply dismissing information based on the source is frankly absurd.
Incidentally, Mearsheimer gave an entire lecture back in 2014 predicting the events in Ukraine that are currently unfolding, seems to me that he might know what he’s talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
three intire period’s
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Want to share a source on that? Or are you making shit up?
Share a source for NATO invading Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, is that what you’re asking there little buddy?
Are you saying you can’t? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
No, I’m saying that anybody can type in words NATO and Yugoslavia or NATO and Libya into Google and see that you’re a liar.
What I’ve read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you’re already eating the propaganda cereal.
😂
Yugoslavia didn’t launch missiles at nato countries, also btw the first time nato article 5 was activated was in 2001 do to 9/11
nations are not forcer to join nato
🤡
LOL TANKIE CRYING
I see somebody is projecting
i am not the SONY 4K HDR Laser Home Theater Projector with Native 4K SXRD Panel
Model: VPL-XW5000ES
Well, they are forced by Russia. That should kinda do the opposite. Well, whatever ¯\_(ツ)_/¯