Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
I think Ukraine is morally right but they are in an active propoganda war and we wont know until after so I agree its pointless to talk about . but bluegrass keeps bringing it up
But there is no propaganda needed for normal people.
Russia should just leave all Ukrainian territory today. Ukraine is fully justified to do anything until that happens. We are fully justified to help Ukraine do literally anything until that happens.
No one should ask for anything different from "Russia has to leave completely" and claiming Russia has ANY justification for anything that happened since the invasion is 100% wrong.
No events can change the above until Russia fully leaves. Propaganda is for people who don't have that clear model k
In their minds.
And of course there are propaganda attempts to claim the other side is weak and so on. Doesn't matter at all.
well using fudged numbers to convince people of that from Tallahassee probably works against that even if they are in the right . If they lie about that they convince tankies they lie about other things. this is a situation where honesty would work in their favor
But there is no propaganda needed for normal people.
Russia should just leave all Ukrainian territory today. Ukraine is fully justified to do anything until that happens. We are fully justified to help Ukraine do literally anything until that happens.
No one should ask for anything different from "Russia has to leave completely" and claiming Russia has ANY justification for anything that happened since the invasion is 100% wrong.
No events can change the above until Russia fully leaves. Propaganda
didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea? like, that is well established at this point. so you want more than just Russia leaving.
well using fudged numbers to convince people of that from Tallahassee probably works against that even if they are in the right . If they lie about that they convince tankies they lie about other things. this is a situation where honesty would work in their favor
Fudged numbers about what, lies about what? And why do you think tankies can be convinced of anything that is pro west?
Not sure why you think telling the enemies your details works in your favor
didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea? like, that is well established at this point. so you want more than just Russia leaving.
Lol no. We've been over this before.
What you're claiming came from US officials who were not present at the meeting, and they have since been corrected by people actually at the meeting. Even if this was offered (it wasn't), there was no mechanism actually guarantee this.
EVEN THE SECOND HAND ACCOUNTS WHO WERE NOT THERE DO NOT CLAIM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. They claim that Russia would withdraw to Crimea and what they held of the Donbas prior to the war.
But once again, this is from people hearing about the negotiations and who were not actually there. The people that were actually there have never claimed this was the case, in fact the same publication clarified later:
The talks had deliberately skirted the question of borders and territory. Evidently, the idea was for Putin and Zelensky to decide on those issues at the planned summit. It is easy to imagine that Putin would have insisted on holding all the territory that his forces had already occupied. The question is whether Zelensky could have been convinced to agree to this land grab.
Please read this several times. Then read it several more times, and if that is not enough to get you to stop spreading disinformation then read it some more.
Going back to the crux of your argument: Ukraine has ALWAYS wanted more than the territory back. In fact there are things they want MORE than the territory back. Giving this territory back and sacrificing their own military so Russia can just invade again and take that territory, as well as the entire country IS NOT A DEAL UKRAINE WOULD EVER MAKE NOR SHOULD EVER MAKE. Ukraine is not as shortsighted as you are.
To read more about these things that Ukraine wants, and deserves you can read this post:
Here is the first part of the paragraph and sentence you cut in half:
Although those interpretations contain kernels of truth, they obscure more than they illuminate. There was no single smoking gun; this story defies simple explanations. Further, such monocausal accounts elide completely a [your snippet begins here]
Victor: proceeds to give a smoking gun, monocausal account meant to obscure more than illuminate. Here is the conclusion of the article on what you've been trying to argue for years,
Look I can understand that last year when I gave you all of my own evidence and made these same arguments that you would not agree to believe them. But if now that the very publication that you want to use as a source is saying them? You should listen. There's no excuse anymore.
After you've read this post, read it again. Then again and again and again. These were all things explained to you multiple times over the course of over a year. Try to use an approach of looking at whether or not Hamas should accept a similar deal. Should Hamas accept a deal that takes away 3/4 of their weapons, gives Israel veto rights on foreign aid going to Hamas, Israel determines who rules Hamas, Hamas must ban a nebulous term which is actually being defined as "anti-Israel", Israel gets to choose several policies Hamas must implement, Hamas is to ignore all Israeli war crimes. THERES NO HISTORY WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS DEAL ANY DIFFERENT. THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO THAT MAKE THIS DEAL ANY BETTER TO THE ONE AGREEING TO IT. IT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD EXERCISE TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS A GOOD DEAL.
If you think any part of this deal isn't good enough for Hamas then it's not good enough for Ukraine. Now that this has been explained to you, you are aware that you are a hyprocite if you would suggest this is a deal one of them should take but the other shouldn't.
After reading this post, hopefully multiple times, hopefully we can stop the disinformation coming from you about:
Russia sincerely wanting a lasting peace
BoJo scuttling a peace deal
Ukraine acting as proxies and only doing what USA wants
USA simultaneously not doing enough to help this peace deal (DO YOU NOT SEE THE CONTRADICTION HERE?)
Ukraine being warmongering Nazis and refusing the peace deal because of this
Zelenskyy not wanting peace because he would then have to give up power
This peace deal not being entirely reliant on trusting Putin
THERE BEING ANYTHING THAT PREVENTS RUSSIA FROM ATTACKING AGAIN IN THIS PEACE DEAL
This is what, the fourth time you've brought up these disinformation points in this thread? And probably 10+ in the last thread? At this point I can only come to two conclusions for how this could happen:
1. You're too brainwashed to possibly accept the mountains of evidence which counter every single one of your claims.
2. You're intentionally spreading disinformation in order to help Russia.
Mods should step in, they should have stepped in a long time ago. It's sad that it has gotten to this state.
Regarding whether or not Russia commits "above average" amount of war crimes:
If you follow this war and you do not encounter anything about Russian war crimes, then you are following propaganda. It's really as simple as that.
I'm not saying that the war crimes are based on who started the war... although yes this is an illegal war since it was unprovoked.
" attacking civilian infrastructure is not a war crime"...... yeah... it is.
Here is the full quote from the "router's" article:
It is saying the exact opposite of what you're trying to sell.
Here's the rest of the article
actually outside of your twitter posts I have barely heard of war crimes from either side and half of them say "energy infrastructure" I already told you multiple times is widely considered a legit military target throughout history. I barely see anything about it in main stream media other then ukriane hit with another rocket attack.
"If you follow this war and you do not encounter anything about Russian war crimes, then you are following propaganda. It's really as simple as that. "
Have you considered like victor your also in an eco chamber? Because targeting energy infrastructure with some collateral damage is not what most people consider mass war crimes.
List of countries that share a border with Russia:
Joined NATO:
Norway
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Built Nuclear Weapons:
North Korea
China
Russia Sent Troops:
Belarus
Ukraine
Georgia
Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh peacekeepers)
This post is not doing what you want it too it more supports victors ideology by showing that everyone around Russia joined a 40vs1 alliance against them even tho your suggesting they did it to be safe from Russia (but they joined it for protection from the fall of the soviet union not current Russia) . the soviet union helped north Korean and China achieve nuclear power so they literally have them to thank for their future protection from Russia. Also all the allies and enemies of Russia you listed except a few joined NATO or received nukes before Russia as it is now even existed . Also all of the places you listed "russia sent troops" are completely or semi autonomous from Russia currently. Even Belarus isn't controlled by Russia enough to help them in the war directly .It just kinda shows Russia has no allies and is no threat to anyone except for Ukraine and maybe Georgia
Norway joined in 1943. That has alot to do with current Russia lol
Finlands joined last year that's probably the only one that counts for the point your trying to make but they were already long term enemy's with mandatory military service for all males and would have joined nato 50 years ago if they were allowed.
The rest joined right after the fall of the soviet Union for protection from Moscow but also for protection from each other. saying they joined because of the current Russian federation is idiotic. At the time they joined they were pretty much all new states along with Russia and just wanted security from each other with all their large stocks of soviet arms. Russia barely existed yet they had no idea what they would become
You didn't read the post for the second time:
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Russian military and authorities have committed war crimes, such as deliberate attacks against civilian targets, including on hospitals, medical facilities and on the energy grid;[1][2] indiscriminate attacks on densely-populated areas; the abduction, torture and murder of civilians; forced deportations; sexual violence; destruction of cultural heritage; and the killing and torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war.
Those aren't Twitter links. There is nothing bad about Twitter links either, they can be perfectly fine. There is a low barrier of entry to post something on Twitter but that doesn't make it false.
You can continue to claim that attacks on energy infrastructure with the purpose of freezing a population into submission is not a war crime, but you're still wrong.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-u...
Mr Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu, born on 21 May 1955, Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation at the time of the alleged conduct, and Mr Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, born on 8 September 1955, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation at the time of the alleged conduct, are each allegedly responsible for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute) and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts under article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute. There are reasonable grounds to believe they bear individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes for (i) having committed the acts jointly and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute), (ii) ordering the commission of the crimes (article 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute), and/or (iii) for their failure to exercise proper control over the forces under their command (article 28 of the Rome Statute).
The two warrants of arrest were issued following applications filed by the Prosecution. Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the two suspects bear responsibility for missile strikes carried out by the Russian armed forces against the Ukrainian electric infrastructure from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023. During this time-frame, a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine.
You were wrong when I initially told you you were wrong. Now the ICC has placed warrants for the crimes you claimed were not crimes. You're wrong.
This statement remains correct:
If you follow this war and you do not encounter anything about Russian war crimes, then you are following propaganda. It's really as simple as that.
This post is not doing what you want it too it more supports victors ideology by showing that everyone around Russia joined a 40vs1 alliance against them even tho your suggesting they did it to be safe from Russia (but they joined it for protection from the fall of the soviet union not current Russia) . the soviet union helped north Korean and China achieve nuclear power so they literally have them to thank for their future protection from Russia. Also all the allies and enemies of Russia you li
This post is doing exactly what I want it to. Your response inadvertently helps prove my point by challenging a claim I didn’t make while reinforcing one I did:
For some reason no one has ever answered when I've asked this question: what does NATO threaten? Russia has nukes, it's not getting invaded. Russia is at its absolute weakest and NATO has not invaded. If NATO is 'encroaching' on anything, it is encroaching on Russia's ability to terrorize its neighbors.
As you correctly point out, NATO is not an anti-Russia alliance; it is a mutual defense agreement designed to protect its member states from external aggression. This agreement only poses a threat to countries that intend to invade or destabilize others. If Russia perceives NATO’s defensive posture as a threat, that says more about Russia’s intentions than it does about NATO’s.
I love NATO im glad it exists and am apart of it. Its like the cool kids table at school most people can sit but we need a bunch of nerds/havenots to bully to make us feel better or in this case have more wealth . Sometimes they try to fight back but we will put them in their place. Its getting kind of crowded tho I wish we could kick some people out. If everyone joins it wont be cool anymore
NATO doesn't exist to deter Russia but it kind of exists to deter Russia.
Right.
NATO doesn't exist to deter Russia, but because Russia's foreign policy has become the most destabilizing and violent force in the region, NATO's primary function now is to deter Russia.
its sure a good excuse to keep it around. but really its china..... Russia is lol. I feel like poland or finland can take them out 1on1 atm
It was originally an alliance of deterrence. The Soviets did not demobilize their divisions in Europe after WW2 and it was believed that this posed a threat to the remainder of Europe. Meanwhile, the allies and remainder of Europe had demobilized. It was believed, and probably rightfully so, that no single nation could stand up the Soviets if they decided to invade and even if they banded together, the outcome would be uncertain. Then you had the communist coup in 1948 in Czechoslovakia, which confirmed suspicions of Soviet Union intentions and accelerated the diplomatic work towards an alliance.
Of course, you still had the problem that you could not threaten the Soviets in conventional warfare. The solution was an alliance of nuclear deterrence. If the Soviets attacked one of the member countries, they would respond with a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
Later, as NATO built up its conventional warfare capability and the Soviets increased their nuclear capabilities, it become more about mutual assured destruction. Which is the name we give to the blindingly idiotic idea that people stupid enough to build weapons that could destroy us all and point them at each-other couldn't possibly be stupid enough to fire them.
Lol no. We've been over this before.
What you're claiming came from US officials who were not present at the meeting, and they have since been corrected by people actually at the meeting. Even if this was offered (it wasn't), there was no mechanism actually guarantee this.
EVEN THE SECOND HAND ACCOUNTS WHO WERE NOT THERE DO NOT CLAIM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. They claim that Russia would withdraw to Crimea and what they held of the Donbas prior to the war.
But once again, this is from people hearing ab
glad we agree that Ukraine and the West require Russia to do a lot more than just leave
Disinformation
like, that is well established at this point.
Disinformation
so you want more than just Russia leaving.
Yes this is correct. Russia needs to stop the genocides and invasions, not just hit reset when things don't go well and try again later.
Saying "LOL nice try, try again later, I'll let you control my army to make sure you succeed" is dumb. Not agreeing to handicap their future by giving Russia control of foreign aid and limiting their army to a police force is not warmongering, it is not destroying democracy to stay in power, it is not being a proxy to USA. It also does not mean that Russia offered peace.
what part of Donbas did Russia control prior to the invasion? like that is the part you are taking exception to.
my bad, I should have said. didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea and some unknown part of the Donbas that no one has clarified yet?
what part of Donbas did Russia control prior to the invasion? like that is the part you are taking exception to.
Here's what I said last time you said this:
Are you trolling? You have been in here for over a year screaming and yelling "UKRO DOMBED THE BOMBASS!" You want me to explain to you the conflict in the Donbas which we have been debating for over a year? We have discussed Azov, both Minsk treaties, Zelenskyy running on ending the conflict in the Donbas, the "No to Capitulation" campaign, Girkin, Euromaidan, and more all relating to Donbas. You're now trying to downplay its significance?
my bad, I should have said. didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea and some unknown part of the Donbas that no one has clarified yet?
And the answer would still be "no, they did not." Read my post where I address this above!
what part of Donbas did Russia control prior to the invasion? like that is the part you are taking exception to.
my bad, I should have said. didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea and some unknown part of the Donbas that no one has clarified yet?
None, prior to 2022 they didn't control Donbass (they "just" armed the separatists).
They have to leave (and undo the annexation they did September 2022) and stop arming or helping Ukrainian separatists in any way, direct or indirect.
We could even accept if they take in as exiles (because they should go to jail for treason and/or death penalty otherwise) that could be ok if it's how we get lasting peace.
You know the 2021 official borders (disregarding all separatists claims)? They have to go back there.
Then we discuss Crimea at another time
