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.
arming extremists and separatists is only cool when we do it
Why is it wrong for Ukraine to want more than Russia to leave Ukraine anyways? Not getting genocided and invaded aren't really outlandish things to request.
Here's what I said last time you said this:
And the answer would still be "no, they did not." Read my post where I address this above!
I still cant tell what part of Donbas that Russia controlled. I even read the wiki. it seems you dont want to share that knowledge and want to just rant about other stuff. noted.
arming extremists and separatists is only cool when we do it
Ukraine is fully justified to do anything against Russia, having being invaded unprovoked, until Russia goes away.
When Russia armed Ukrainian separatists, it had no justification to do so, Ukraine hadn't invaded Russia nor done anything like arming Russian separatists.
Not hard to understand that an action is legit in defense, not legit in offense.
Self defense justifies stuff that is otherwise unjustified, is a very basic principle which you erroneously apply to Palestine (which isn't a state so isn't an offended party) but refuse to apply to Ukraine (which is a state so if invaded, is justified to respond).
I still cant tell what part of Donbas that Russia controlled. I even read the wiki. it seems you dont want to share that knowledge and want to just rant about other stuff. noted.
None, I already answered.
They just have to ****ing leave.
How hard is it for you to admit that yes, Russia should just ****ing leave, unconditionally?
who said it was wrong?
ofc, you dont apply these concepts evenly when it comes to other conflicts.
Don't be shy, explain why you asked then. I currently only have the previous times you've brought this up to go off of, and we all know why you brought it up then.
I do apply my concepts to other conflicts. You are projecting again. You hypocrisy can been clearly explained.
We are now discussing what something which was never said means.
If the negotiations agreed that Russia had to return everyplace to Ukraine except what they controlled in the Donbas and Crimea (they did not say this) then clearly Russia meant that they controlled this area of the Donbas. The insurgents never had popular support, right before these events unfolded only 25% of the people in this area wanted to join Russia, and Russia was instrumental in actually keeping these areas from collapsing because they never wanted to secede. The fact that Russia walked in there, rounded up all of the men and used them as slave soldiers for cannon fodder shows that these insurgents were only insurgents in the loosest sense; these areas were Russian and under Russian control. The separatists never existed in any meaningful numbers (Girkin can attest to this) and it was just a weak facade used by Russia, same as in Georgia.
Even if you disagree with this, what matters is Russia's interpretation of it. If Russia didn't think they controlled it, then why would it even be mentioned (not that it was)?
Don't be shy, explain why you asked then. I currently only have the previous times you've brought this up to go off of, and we all know why you brought it up then.
I do apply my concepts to other conflicts. You are projecting again. You hypocrisy can been clearly explained.
somebody said that "Russia just needs to leave".
heres their actual words
Russia should just leave all Ukrainian territory today.
I was simply pointing out that Russia needs to do more than that to satisfy Ukraine and the West and its supporters.
unfortunately we are not allowed to make comparisons in this thread or any other. maybe we can speak in hypotheticals but I probably cant, that is reserved for yourself. regardless, in almost all conflicts what should happen from the perspective of one side, or even from a moral perspective, is not always what happens to achieve peace. the USA should leave a lot of places and stop arming a lot of people too.
didnt Russia agree to leave everything except Crimea? like, that is well established at this point. so you want more than just Russia leaving.
So just to clarify, this thing which didn't happen suggests that Russia never did plan to leave all of Ukraine...
So want to try again what you're trying to prove? Because in the past I remember you saying it proves Ukraine are warmongering Nazis, Zelenskyy wants to hold power, etc.
The difference between leaving some areas so Russia can have a launching point for their next invasion and also trading this for Ukraine giving up its military is far different from Russia "just leaving" without insisting that Ukraine open itself up to a future invasion.
Hypotheticals are great. Comparisons are great. When they are on topic. Yours are consistently not.
Why is it wrong for Ukraine to want more than Russia to leave Ukraine anyways? Not getting genocided and invaded aren't really outlandish things to request.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the thread. All those countries voluntarily entering NATO after Russia invaded a new nearby region meant that the Russian "sphere of influence" (aka potential future invasion victims) was threatened.
Faced with this dismal outlook for future invasions, Russia obviously had no choice but to invade Ukraine before they entered NATO.
Thus, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers poured over the Ukrainian border in what can only be called an outrageous display of pure unchecked NATO militarism. Not only that, but Ukraine chose to defend itself! Such a ludicrous act of aggression can simply not be excused. A desire to keep its independence also clearly shows us all that Ukraine is a puppet state.
Or something like that. It gets convoluted when people try to excuse Russia.
somebody said that "Russia just needs to leave".
heres their actual words
I was simply pointing out that Russia needs to do more than that to satisfy Ukraine and the West and its supporters.
unfortunately we are not allowed to make comparisons in this thread or any other. maybe we can speak in hypotheticals but I probably cant, that is reserved for yourself. regardless, in almost all conflicts what should happen from the perspective of one side, or even from a moral perspective, is not always wha
I said leave and stop arming the separatists. Leave all of Ukraine as defined by the official borders in 2021, as explained already many times. Nothing complicated.
Russia NEVER proposed to leave donbass as a fully Kiev-controlled area. They never proposed that. They maybe proposed (maybe, unclear, but there are enough elements to suggest that) to leave Ukraine except the areas that separatists claim are "independent republics" which then Russia formally (on their side) annexed in september 2022.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the thread. All those countries voluntarily entering NATO after Russia invaded a new nearby region meant that the Russian "sphere of influence" (aka potential future invasion victims) was threatened.
Faced with this dismal outlook for future invasions, Russia obviously had no choice but to invade Ukraine before they entered NATO.
Thus, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers poured over the Ukrainian border in what can only be called an outrageous
The latest insane take is that given 2 years into a completly unprovoked war of aggression, Ukraine arms some anti-Assad separatists in Syria (and so helps enemies of a russian ally), then Russia was justified starting in 2014 to arm ukrainian separatists against Kiev, even if Ukraine hadn't committed any act of aggression against Russia.
The absurdity just compounds.
Earlier the lies and propaganda got so distorted that amoral Zelenskyy (the Jewish frontman installed after Ukraine succumbed to a Nazi coup) was fighting off the Nazis inside Ukraine as well as fighting off Russia at the same time; yet he's still evil and amoral.
I said leave and stop arming the separatists. Leave all of Ukraine as defined by the official borders in 2021, as explained already many times. Nothing complicated.
Russia NEVER proposed to leave donbass as a fully Kiev-controlled area. They never proposed that. They maybe proposed (maybe, unclear, but there are enough elements to suggest that) to leave Ukraine except the areas that separatists claim are "independent republics" which then Russia formally (on their side) annexed in september 2022.
whooo boy. sounds like the Russian disinfo got to you.
So just to clarify, this thing which didn't happen suggests that Russia never did plan to leave all of Ukraine...
So want to try again what you're trying to prove? Because in the past I remember you saying it proves Ukraine are warmongering Nazis, Zelenskyy wants to hold power, etc.
The difference between leaving some areas so Russia can have a launching point for their next invasion and also trading this for Ukraine giving up its military is far different from Russia "just leaving" without insist
Zelensky def doesnt want power. he just canceled elections so he could remain in charge. but that doesnt mean he wants power.
Blatant disinformation.
Martial law has been explained to you. The laws of Ukraine which require Ukrainian parliament, not Zelenskyy alone, to enact martial law has been explained to you.
If you continue to voice that disinformation you are either
1. too brainwashed to be reasoned with
2. blatantly spreading Russian disinformation
Either way you should be banned from this thread, it is a shame that mods allow this.
you are, as usual, twisting my words, and adding meaning and intent which isnt there.
the election was postponed indefinitely and Zelensky remains in power. if you want to argue that is a good thing then fine, I wont disagree bc I dont care. but it seems pretty weird to act like he doesnt want to remain in power considering you know, he still is in power and elections have been postponed indefinitely.
No, I'm not twisting your words. I am not adding meaning and intent which isn't there. Point out where I've done that.
he just canceled elections so he could remain in charge. but that doesnt mean he wants power.
He did not cancel elections; when martial law was enacted by parliament elections stopped. Yours is a dishonest interpretation.
The fact that he is in power does not mean that he wants to be in power. It's clearly very much the opposite to anyone paying any attention. Point to something suggesting otherwise.
you are, as usual, twisting my words, and adding meaning and intent which isnt there.
the election was postponed indefinitely and Zelensky remains in power. if you want to argue that is a good thing then fine, I wont disagree bc I dont care. but it seems pretty weird to act like he doesnt want to remain in power considering you know, he still is in power and elections have been postponed indefinitely.
Well, since you are worried about this, please expand on these four issues:
1. What is your plan for convincing the Ukrainian parliament to agree to hold presidential elections? They are the ones granting extensions, they are the ones declaring martial war. Currently every residing party, including Zelensky's opposition, do not want to hold presidential elections.
2. Please share your plan for stopping Russian bombing of civilian areas in unoccupied Ukraine while the election takes place.
3. Please share your plan for how the Ukrainians in Russian-occupied areas are supposed vote.
4. Please share your plan for how war-torn Ukraine will assemble the voting rolls and organize the vote among its 7 million refugees living in other countries.
you are, as usual, twisting my words, and adding meaning and intent which isnt there.
the election was postponed indefinitely and Zelensky remains in power. if you want to argue that is a good thing then fine, I wont disagree bc I dont care. but it seems pretty weird to act like he doesnt want to remain in power considering you know, he still is in power and elections have been postponed indefinitely.
I mean you defend Hamas being the legitimate representative of Palestinian will when the last elections happened 18 years ago there, but you c ant understand why having elections with a piece of your country occupied by foreign militaries and unaccessible for you is problematic.
If Ukraine votes now it can't count the votes in Donbass + some areas nearby.
Which would then allow you to claim whomever wins doesn't represent the will of Donbass and we are at the same place anyway lol
