Lots of LLM bots today. We may need to start verifying accounts :/
TheDorkfromYork 16 points 2 years ago
RippleEffect 22 points 2 years ago
I've been noticing this a lot. There's a lot more Russian support in all my apps. I really think there's a concerted effort that is now being fully enabled by our current administration.
TheDorkfromYork 1 point 2 years ago
path: 0 15424121 15433434 15570584 15572332, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
AES_Enjoyer -26 points 2 years ago
If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately
That's technically true. However, Russia uses military force in its sphere of influence for a reason, not solely because Putin bad (which he is, I'm a commie and Putin is fascist-adjacent at best).
Russia, like all big capitalist countries, wants to secure a sphere of influence in which it can do easy trade, influence the politics, and generally have support from these countries. The US does this for example with western Europe through NATO, and with less diplomatic methods by supporting coups and invading other countries. China does this through economic trade and through massive investment projects. Russia is in a weak position internationally, barely recovered economically from the dismantling of the USSR, and it's surrounded by former soviet republics very much in a similar plane (barely economically recovered from the 90s crisis as a consequence of the dismantling of the USSR).
These post-soviet republics, such as Ukraine or Georgia, adopted capitalism (as Russia did) in a very quick and disorderly fashion, and the resulting oligarchs and capitalist owners ended up fumbled in a mix of pro-russian and pro-european/US positions.
The EU and the USA both exert pressure on these countries to try and bring them to their side. Being economically and politically stronger, they can use trade, diplomacy, intelligence and economic means to alienate these countries front the Russian sphere of influence. Russia, in a more precarious and weaker economic and political position, simply doesn't have the means to maintain the diplomatic, economic and intelligence means to maintain these countries aligned to itself.
The war in Ukraine, much as the interference in Georgian and Romanian elections by the EU, mustn't be understood as a struggle between freedom and oppression. It's sadly just a struggle between two capitalist empires, namely Russia and US/EU, fighting for the control of smaller countries that they want aligned to themselves.
Once Russia doesn't have the means to economically, diplomatically and through intelligence, to influence its former sphere of influence into staying by its side, the only option left is the military route. The US and the EU know this, and they keep trying to mess with Russia's sphere of influence for gains to their empires. The reality is that there is no good side and no bad side: it's just struggle between opposing empires.
So yes, technically if Russia withdrew its troops, there would be peace. But this peace would mean that firstly the surrounding regions around Russia, and Russia itself, would become colonies and vassal states of the western world. It wouldn't mean "freedom" for Ukraine, as we can see by the exploitative contract for the minerals of Ukraine that the US offers. If you think the EU will offer something substantially less exploitative towards Ukrainians, you're wrong.
Ukraine, sad as it is, as long as it remains a state between empires, will suffer the effects of both. And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
magic_lobster_party 32 points 2 years ago
- Russia was by no means forced into the conflict. They did it because Putin wants more power for himself.
- Russia has great diplomatic power. They managed to get a Russia loving president in US.
- If Ukraine falls, then there’s going to be some other nation that will be the ”state between empires”. Next will be Moldova. Maybe Russia is brave enough to take on the Baltic countries as well now when the future of NATO is uncertain. If that succeeds, then Poland will be next, and maybe also eastern Germany.
- Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees other than that Trump said that Putin said something. Why should Ukraine sign a deal that won’t end the war?
AES_Enjoyer -17 points 2 years ago
because Putin wants more power
They managed to get a Russia loving president in US
Holy moly "great men historiography" and "Russia is behind everything I hate" both in one single comment, that's quite the feat. Great job firstly ignoring the material analysis and geopolitics of the situation and trying to explain history as "big man makes decision", and then falling for the racist trope that the USA isn't capable of electing a fascist without external interference, as if the US wasn't founded in the fascist principles of the Lebensraum and slavery->segregation
If Ukraine falls
Ukraine will not fall. The objective of Russia in this war isn't pure expansionism further to the west, it's the imposition of its political principles and strategic desires in its sphere of influence. The Russian government knows it cannot control successfully for a long period of time the now (understandably) anti-Russian radicalised sections of central and western Ukraine, what it wants are concessions in geopolitical and strategic terms. Mark my words: the war in Ukraine will stop sooner than later, and after it, only some sections in eastern Ukraine will be annexed to Russia.
Furthermore your reasoning of "if this nation falls, there's gonna be the next", is exactly the way Russia feels about its geopolitical allies. In 1990, there was an agreement that NATO wouldn't push beyond Germany, and that has been violated first with Poland and then with more countries. Why push a US-backed military alliance to the borders of the US-declared main geopolitical enemy? What consequences do you expect from that? Imagine a Russian-led military coalition pushing for the annexion of Mexico.
Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees
Regardless of safety guarantees, the resources of western Ukraine will be plundered by the NATO block, whether it be EU or the USA I cannot know, but mark my words when you see the economic situation of Ukraine in 2030
dutchkimble -5 points 2 years ago
Really well explained in both your comments...
AES_Enjoyer -13 points 2 years ago
OK, please tell me how the NATO block is any better in this regard, haven't you literally just been witness to the most open genocide in history and NOBODY in the west did anything to stop it?
Carighan 3 points 2 years ago
And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
I mean maybe, but that's utopian given that all socialism efforts so far where actually authoritan regimes using socialism as a label. We don't know whether it'd help, we have exactly zero data points.
AES_Enjoyer -3 points 2 years ago
Regarding the Ukraine problem in particular and the situation of Ukraine during socialism in Europe, I have already made a comment demystifying some of the most pervasive anticommunist, russophobic propaganda. Please give it a read and show me your thoughts :)
If you think my solution is "utopian", check out this data from OurWorldInData (hopefully a Bill Gates outlet won't be suspect of tankieism or pro-russian tendencies for you) for GDP per capita in Ukraine since the dismantling of the Soviet Union. Ukraine never recovered its soviet levels of production and of quality of life for people. The USSR was no utopia, it was a very real thing, and it was materially and significantly better for Ukraine than whatever options exist now.
surph_ninja -47 points 2 years ago
There wasn’t peace before Russia invaded. The far-right US puppet regime was slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east, and allowing NATO to move in troop and missile deployments to the Russian border.
Why would Ukraine behave differently after a Russian withdrawal, when they were escalating for 8 years prior to the invasion?
surph_ninja -23 points 2 years ago
What is it about NATO & Israeli bots that causes y’all to so reflexively gravitate towards sexual violence? Is it part of the official training, or are y’all just like that?
Loce 15 points 2 years ago
You're either a bot, a troll or just plain old stupid. Even if you're just stupid, you're not worth my time because I cant fix stupid, and there's really no point in arguing with you.
Brainsploosh 139 points 2 years ago path: 0 15425164, hotness: undefined, score: 139, children: 57
Gradually_Adjusting 16 points 2 years ago
If somebody fools you twenty times they are (best case scenario) literally Loki.
Soup 7 points 2 years ago
I dunno, there are a tonne of incredibly stupid and uncreative people who conservatives believe every day for years. The part about loki seems to be a statisical outlier not just “best case scenario”, ya know?
thetemerian -35 points 2 years ago
So what’s the alternative?
Edit: looks like there wasn’t an alternative despiteso many people beating their chests that there is 🤷♂️
caboose2006 39 points 2 years ago
Give Ukraine everything they need to kick the Russians off their soil. Tomahawks, F35s, a million artillery shells a week, etc... lift all usage restrictions with the exception of civilian targets and infrastructure. Once every square inch of Ukraine is back in Ukrainian hands full NATO membership and a Marshall like recovery plan.
Or assassinate Putin. As long as Putin lives Ukraine is under threat.
computerscientistII 8 points 2 years ago
and infrastructure.
No. That has to go. The war will end a lot sooner, if there aren't any bridges and rails left, the Russkies can use to ship ammo and cannon fodder.
caboose2006 10 points 2 years ago
I meant civilian infrastructure. So like power stations or shipping centers that handle civilian goods or subways etc.... If it carries a single artillery round it's fair game.
thetemerian -27 points 2 years ago
That’s unsustainable, brainless and unrealistic, who is going to pay and fight if the war continues for 5 more years, what about 10 more years?
caboose2006 23 points 2 years ago
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
So, what's your "totally realistic"TM solution?
LeFantome 20 points 2 years ago
Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.
In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.
Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.
Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.
In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?
Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?
Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.
I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.
Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).
Do you have a better argument?
Brainsploosh 6 points 2 years ago path: 0 15425164 15426536 15427864, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
threeganzi 3 points 2 years ago
Can you really not imagine an alternative?
thetemerian -8 points 2 years ago
I can’t believe that my point was proven in just a couple of days: https://www.rferl.org/...
threeganzi 2 points 2 years ago
Your point hasn’t been proven. OPs point was that Putin promises can’t be trusted. And without US putting force behind that promise, Ukraine is wise to be worried about such a deal.
Just because one alternative realized doesn’t mean there weren’t other options, better or worse.
Edit: plus, a peace deal is far from done, regardless which side you root for.
thetemerian -13 points 2 years ago
I see plenty of alternatives, just not one in which people stop dying immediately.
LeFantome 8 points 2 years ago
History teaches us that Russia cease fire agreements mean that fewer die immediately but that lasts a far shorter time than you hope for. In the end, even more people die than before when Russia resumes their aggression.
This is not a prediction or an opinion. That are literally dozens of historical events to draw this information from.
threeganzi 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 15425164 15426536 15427704 15428077 15430513, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
NotLemming 0 points 2 years ago path: 0 15425164 15426536 15437664, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
surph_ninja -70 points 2 years ago
Russia has always firmly opposed expansion of NATO, including the missiles and NATO troops that were lined up at their border with Ukraine’s participation.
DicJacobus 45 points 2 years ago
All those countries that joined NATO, Their sovereignty doesn't end where hurt russian fee-fees begin
if Russia doesnt like it, then maybe they should reflect on how they acted like savage barbarians to those people throughout history. Maybe they should reflect that they aren't entiteld to an "Empire" or a "Sphere of Influence" or whatever they want to call it. Reflect on the fact that Eastern and Central europe are not pawns and slaves to a larger power. but nations with agency, hopes, dreams and goals.
but they wont, Imperialism, Warmongering, and Genocide are married to the current excuse of "Russian Culture"
Carighan 4 points 2 years ago
Yeah like, instead of taking a hard look into the mirror why countries kept wanting to join NATO, or why the russian-bloc equivalent failed so much, LULZ WE JUST GONNA WALTZ IN NO NATO PLOX.
Ah, nevermind, they did discover why so many countries wanted to join NATO. 😂
surph_ninja -43 points 2 years ago
If it was about their sovereignty, it’s weird that you don’t mind NATO attacking their sovereignty to install pro-western politicians through corruption or straight up coups. “Sovereignty” only seems to matter when it’s anti-Russian.
It’s not about feelings. There were many agreements for NATO not to expand. They did it anyway. There are consequences for that.
DicJacobus 25 points 2 years ago
Please educate me. Which countries had pro-western politicians "Installed"
And if you're already typing Ukraine, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
With maybe the exception of Serbia, Russia has been antagonistic and Imperialistic towards Europe for CENTURIES. Theres a reason Russia finds itself fighting against most/all of Europe every century. You need only ask the butchered populations of Eastern Europe who found themselves as Russian subjects at any point in history. The only reason they were ever friendly with Serbia, was because the Serbs are like a microchasm of the same thing the Russians did. Mini-mes, if you will.
you want to scream America bad, NATO bad, fine. but remove both of them from the equation, it wouldnt change the fact that the continent distrusts Russia for a reason.
Carighan 1 point 2 years ago
There were many agreements for NATO not to expand.
Oh were there?
That's interesting, considering how controversial it still is whether oral agreements ever existed in the first place. What isn't controversial is of course that being oral-only, they can hardly be binding or transactionary. That is to say, the failure was to never transfer these agreements - if they even existed - into writing, bilaterally as that's how you'd have to do it.
surph_ninja -37 points 2 years ago
They’ve only ever threatened their neighbors during NATO expansion efforts.
uienia 9 points 2 years ago
Complete horseshit. They literally invaded and installed a puppet regime in Chechnia, and there were zero NATO "expansion efforts" there. And that is just one example out of many.
Empricorn 26 points 2 years ago
"The United States should invade a country that might in the future join an alliance to help prevent the US from invading other countries as we have in the past." Do you realize how fucking stupid your nAtO eXpAnSiOn propaganda sounds!?
surph_ninja -26 points 2 years ago
I’m literally just plainly stating historical events.
ReluctantMuskrat 21 points 2 years ago
Except Ukraine was on their border and not part of NATO and other countries on their border are. NATO Then Russia invaded and took the Crimean peninsula unprovoked. Not a surprise that Ukraine wants NATO membership, and now Finland joined NATO because of Russia's attack on Ukraine, doubling the NATO/Russia border.
surph_ninja -38 points 2 years ago
Incorrect. The Crimea invasion followed a soft coup of Ukraine by the US, wherein they installed a far-right puppet regime. The following years, Ukraine allowed a torrent of NATO & US troops and missile deployments to be installed at their border with Russia.
ReluctantMuskrat 21 points 2 years ago
Nope... you're spreading bullshit. People got rid of a Putin puppet. Hope we do the same.
Tattorack 20 points 2 years ago
NATO hasn't "expanded" in a long time, until recently when Sweden and Finland decided to join. A decision that was made based on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So through Russia's actions, two countries have decided to join an organisation that was made to opposed Russia.
Before that, no new members were accepted into NATO, even if they wanted to join, because NATO members weren't really seeing the point of NATO anymore, and they didn't see a reason to provoke Russia. That changed in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, and annexed Crimea.
Last but not least; NATO doesn't expand. It's not a nation with borders that grow through conquest or subjugation. It is a defensive pact that the peolpe of a nation must vote on to join. And then the members of NATO must unanimously vote on letting the new country join. It is voluntary and democratic.
So instead of shoutong "NATO IS EXPANDING, GRRR!!", why not ask yourself "why would Russia's neighbouring countries want to join NATO?"
surph_ninja -20 points 2 years ago
Completely untrue. NATO has been expanding since the 90’s.
NotLemming 17 points 2 years ago path: 0 15427391 15432449 15437461, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 0
surph_ninja 0 points 2 years ago
The primary mission of NATO is aggression with the Soviet Union/Russia. That’s the only reason it exists.
TheEighthDoctor 7 points 2 years ago
Why does Russia get to dictate what other countries do within their borders?
surph_ninja -1 points 2 years ago
I’m pretty sure every country on earth would respond to a hostile force amassing troops & missiles at their border.
TheEighthDoctor 0 points 2 years ago
The fundamental difference here is between a sovereign nation pursuing defensive alliances versus an aggressive invasion violating international law. Ukraine wasn't "amassing troops & missiles" at Russia's border as an hostile threat - it was seeking security guarantees after Russia had already annexed Crimea in 2014 and fomented separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. National sovereignty means countries get to determine their own security arrangements, and Russia's "security concerns" don't justify violating Ukraine's territorial integrity or dictating its foreign policy choices.
Gloria 104 points 2 years ago
path: 0 15423943, hotness: undefined, score: 104, children: 5
Ukraine, Russia, the DPR and LPR signed a ceasefire agreement, the Minsk Protocol, in September 2014.[40] Ceasefire breaches became rife, 29 in all,[41] and heavy fighting resumed in January 2015, during which the separatists captured Donetsk Airport. A new ceasefire, Minsk II, was agreed on 12 February 2015. Immediately after, separatists renewed their offensive on Debaltseve and forced Ukraine's military to withdraw.[42] Skirmishes continued but the front line did not change. Both sides fortified their position by building networks of trenches, bunkers and tunnels, resulting in static trench warfare.[43][44] Stalemate led to the war being called a "frozen conflict",[45] but Donbas remained a war zone, with dozens killed monthly.[46] In 2017, on average a Ukrainian soldier died every three days,[47] with an estimated 40,000 separatist and 6,000 Russian troops in the region.[48][49] By the end of 2017, OSCE observers had counted around 30,000 people in military gear crossing from Russia at the two border checkpoints it was allowed to monitor,[50] and documented military convoys crossing from Russia covertly.[51] All sides agreed to a roadmap for ending the war in October 2019,[52] but it remained unresolved.[53][54] During 2021, Ukrainian fatalities rose sharply and Russian forces massed around Ukraine's borders.[55] Russia recognised the DPR and LPR as independent states on 21 February 2022 and deployed troops to those territories. On 24 February, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, subsuming the war in Donbas into it.
Make no Mistake: Russia is trying to destroy Ukraine since 2014. Russia is the agressor and needs to put in its place.
rockerface 45 points 2 years ago
Russia is trying to destroy Ukraine ever since both of them were founded as independent counties. This is just a reiteration of what we've already seen in the russian empire and in the USSR. History is a merry-go-round and I'm getting motion sick of all the rotation.
Edit: typo
nickwitha_k 8 points 2 years ago
Goes back to the Russian Revolution at the very least, though probably to the the Russian Empire. Historical data send to suggest that the Russian elite will not accept anyone but Russian hegemony over the region. The Bolsheviks betrayed the Ukrainian Anarcho-Communists who had helped to defeat the White army because they wanted independent self-governance rather than bowing to the Bolsheviks' authoritarian Central Council in Moscow.
AES_Enjoyer -2 points 2 years ago
This is just a reiteration of what we've already seen in the russian empire and in the USSR
Comparing the Russian Empire and the USSR is the most ahistorical thing you can possibly do. During the Russian Empire and for all of history before that, Ukraine was a people without a nation. Oppressed, without representation, without borders, without a right to education or even learning to read in their language.
The Bolsheviks, with their first constitution in 1917, granted the right to self-determination and secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire, which Lenin referred to as "the prison of peoples". Quite literally after Poland seceded in this legal fashion, the Polish government decided it wanted to return to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth borders, and proceeded to unilaterally invade Ukraine and part of modern Belarus. It was the Red Army of the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, that fought off the Polish invasion and established a lasting Ukrainian People's Republic for the first time in history.
This wasn't without controversy: while Lenin argued for the right to representation and to a Ukrainian Republic within the USSR, others like Rosa Luxembourg argued for a united, more homogeneous sort of socialist soviet nationality that outgrew former nationalisms. It is partially thanks to Lenin that Ukraine ended up having its own borders, administration and representation.
I know what you'll say: "but Holodomor! Genocide against Ukrainians!". The famine of the USSR was a sad and unintended consequence of bad policy during the collectivisation/dekulakization process of the early 30s. Millions of people died both within Ukraine and without it, especially as well in Central Asia and southern Russia. As bad as it was, and as avoidable as one can argue it may have been, there's simply no evidence of any intent of attack towards Ukrainian people, it's not precedented by anything similar, and it's not followed by anything similar in the entire history of the USSR.
In those decades and the ones to come, Ukraine would obtain and solidify its own nationality, people would for the first time obtain generalised literacy in their own language, the right to study in their language up to university level, a majority of publications (both journalistic and literary) in Ukrainian, and the very next president of the USSR Nikita Khruschchyov would be Ukrainian.
Attempting to construe a history of oppression of Ukrainians in the USSR is nothing but fictitious, anti-communist and russophobic propaganda, meant to create a divide between Ukrainians and Russians. There are clear geopolitical reasons to do so, and there are clear reasons why Ukrainians are very much afraid or simply hate Russians, because of the modern proto-fascist state that the Russian Republic has become. But creating a line between this capitalist country, the socialist USSR, and the feudalist Russian Empire, is simply an attempt to divide Eastern Europe further and to push Ukraine towards the EU and away from Russia. This point can be argued for without resorting to russophobic and anticommunist myths. We're smarter than this.
rockerface 8 points 2 years ago
Nah, USSR discarded socialism and communism the moment Lenin decided he didn't like losing the elections, and Stalin made it worse for decades. There's nothing anti-communist in calling out an authoritarian dictatorship for what it was.
During the Soviet times there were repeated attempts to homogenize (as you said) all non-russian ethnicities into one big Soviet mass, easy to manage and control. Russian language, culture and values were held as the supposedly communist ideal future at the cost of national identity, replaced by pretense of representation.
Not just Holodomor, but also forced relocations of Ukrainians, Belarusians, Crimean Tatars and other Eastern European ethnicities contributed to that.
So, maybe tune down on Soviet apologia in front of people whose parents and grandparents literally had to live there.
surph_ninja -13 points 2 years ago path: 0 15423943 15432644, hotness: undefined, score: -13, children: 0
MathiasTCK 9 points 2 years ago
Demoralized Russians Go Home
margaritox 2 points 2 years ago
Heroyam Slava!
rockerface 18 points 2 years ago
Putin knows Trump will do absolutely nothing to enforce any peace agreements involving russia. And at this point everyone knows it too.
We're fighting because if we stop fighting, we die regardless. Only that way it won't be loud and noticeable enough so you'll be able to pretend everything is okay.
MystikIncarnate 21 points 2 years ago
The image describes 2014-2022. So it seems he's had 5 additional sit-downs with Russia between 2023-2025.
At least someone is trying to make peace happen (Ukraine).
chaitae3 54 points 2 years ago
You can absolutely want peace and even agree to concessions to Russia to reach a sustainable peace, but this point is absolutely valid: there must be security guarantees, otherwise Putin will just use the armistice to rebuild its strength and attack again.
rockerface 32 points 2 years ago
Oh, absolutely. We want peace more than anyone else, but giving putin a chance to regroup, pull more support together and attack again is not peace, it's surrender
AES_Enjoyer -10 points 2 years ago
it's surrender
That's generally what happens when, you know, you're losing a war.
DicJacobus 10 points 2 years ago
Why surrender and let the invader murder with impunity, when you can still make him fight for every inch.
thats where we're at. Thats been the score since Bucha. Because Ukraine resisted, both sides hate each other like Israel and Palestine now. every time Russia gets into a city, they rape and pillage, murder civilians on the street, torture and castrate POWs before murdering them, and flatten cities to the ground.
you dont surrender to that. you fight to the death. you have no choice.
rockerface 8 points 2 years ago
Oh. And after I went to trouble of typing all that big wall of text in response to your other comment, giving you the benefit of the doubt of arguing in good faith.
Not_mikey 5 points 2 years ago
Security guarantees are nice but only if there believable. If the last 3 years have shown anything it's that the west will not go to all out war with Russia over Ukraine. It may make putin more hesitant but if he calls our bluff a piece of paper isn't going to change the fact that Americans and western Europeans aren't willing to die for Ukraine.
surph_ninja -14 points 2 years ago
There are already were security guarantees, and then the US and their puppet in Ukraine violated their agreements.
Bytemeister 48 points 2 years ago
The deal should be... All Russian troops get pulled out of Ukraine. Ukraine gets a lump sum of all seized Russian assets in foreign nations, Russia agrees not to move troops within 100 miles of Ukraine's border without Ukraine's consent. Ukraine agrees to allow and even assist civillain Russian services with locating and returning living and deceased Russians.
The alternative is we take the limits off of what targets can be attacked within Russia, and enable Ukraine to enforce the conditions as proposed.
I'd also like to add that Russia and the US give up their UN "super veto" power. I don't think anything good and effective can come from the UN when a single country can just "nope" any UN proposals.
pressanykeynow 14 points 2 years ago
Veto power in the UN is a short for "we will use nukes if you do this". The UN is not world government, it's the organisation which task(among many less important things) is to prevent nuclear war.
Bytemeister 17 points 2 years ago
Ah, that explains why India and North Korea have veto power.
LeFantome 7 points 2 years ago
As good as this comment is, neither has the range or targeting capability that the US does or that the USSR did.
The security council veto was designed to keep the US and the USSR at the negotiating table and off the battlefield.
Bytemeister 4 points 2 years ago
Then why are all those other nations on the security council? Just seems like we only need the members with veto power at this point.
DicJacobus 41 points 2 years ago
the amount of Fascist, Jingoistic shitposting that favors either Republican or Russian propaganda on social media is STAGGERING. The people arguing for it are more concerned about bathroom gender signs, DEI, wokism, and a bunch of other made up stuff, and not only are they oblivious that their country is being taken over by a foreign aggressor, THEY ARE PROUD OF IT. Because "at least the Russians kill the gays"
We are in this position we are today, because Russia has been waging an information war against NATO countries for 15-20 years. and the seeds they planted during the days of Georgia and Crimea, are blooming into fruit now.
The free world is AT WAR with Russia, and for the time being, America has been conquered. Victory from the jaws of Defeat, for the Russian mafia
DicJacobus 21 points 2 years ago
They dont need to invade to conquer. They already control the president. he just ended aid to Ukraine. He literally will not say anything bad about Russia. he is bought, paid for, and owned.
America is currentley, and indefinetely, an enemy of the free world.
MathiasTCK 3 points 2 years ago
Trump's support in Congress and the court is worrisome
rockerface 19 points 2 years ago
Exhibit A right here
DicJacobus 2 points 2 years ago
do you remember what they said? By the time I looked at the reply, the account was banned
edit - I dont think I need to know, was able to trace some of their comments on another instance, dude is shreiking about free speech. one of those people who wants to spit vicious hateful bile but be protected from consequences.
people like that are lucky they have keyboards, they generally get punched / stabbed / shot for that kind of behaivor in the real world.
Valmond 3 points 2 years ago
They, "justexit" spewed this crap:
So we must just support your piece of shit Ukraine because you feel its the right thing to do? fucking delusion using every single buzzword, that just shows how fucking insane you are dumb clown doesnt even know the definition of a fascist, clown world
Seems like they are losing (russia losing) after all.
Slava Ukraine!
rockerface 11 points 2 years ago
How about you follow your own advice from another comment and give up on your argument that you're losing? This isn't a video game, you know.
JargonWagon 2 points 2 years ago
I think you've called people "clown" at least five separate times in this post's conments alone. I probably wouldn't have noticed you if it wasn't for the absolutely weird insult that you keep repeating. No one will take what you're saying seriously if you don't change it up a little. Go ask your boss at the Russian troll farm for tips on how to troll better online.
Stop clowning around.
SoftestSapphic 30 points 2 years ago
The US won the physical war but lost the soft war to Russia.
The US is being couped, and we need to dethrone them before it's too late.
DicJacobus 1 point 2 years ago
Aside from the territorial lines basically reaching a stalemate, Russia's ability to wage large scale war has been utterly crushed.
No one wants to get into a wider war, but they are in such a weak position now that even without the US, NATO would still completely shitrock them. The Russian Army is spent, the airforce is spent. They can do little more than lob missiles, drones, and launch ineffective ground assaults that have high casualties, and against a NATO army, would be wiped out to a man.
Russia is spent militarily, they are in an extremely weak position.
helloworld55 29 points 2 years ago
Negotiations without security assurances*
This is the prime stickler with the USA-Ukraine deal that has been discussed on the news
carpelbridgesyndrome 10 points 2 years ago
Putin needs to lose something or he'll just invade someone else.
surph_ninja -19 points 2 years ago
He only ever invades in response to NATO expansion. Maybe the west should stop trying to move in.
surph_ninja -12 points 2 years ago
Which Putin invasion was not preceded by another NATO expansion?
rockerface 5 points 2 years ago
I wasn't aware he invaded Finland and Sweden already
DicJacobus 12 points 2 years ago
Imperialist Russians with an internal victim complex / Fetal alcohol syndrome, "Russia has never attacked anyone in its history - Sergei Lavrov, Current Foreign Minister of Russia"
Americans who are so blinded by their hatred and confusion of something vaguely liberal that they immediatley turncoat for a foreign aggressor
People who genuinely associate with Nazi and equiavalent ideology
to name a few
M137 31 points 2 years ago
With the time you took to comment you could have looked it up yourself, and then with a bit more time you could have posted the sources here. You're consciously choosing to not be informed, and to do nothing yourself and expect random people to do work for you.
Glitterbomb 10 points 2 years ago
We're talking about major recent history from 2014. Unless they're 12, they don't really have an excuse to be this ill informed for an entire decade. The time it took to comment is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of their time spent in willful ignorance.
errer -2 points 2 years ago
And you could have done the same and posted it for the rest of us instead of wagging your finger.
Number of ceasefires: https://kyivindependent.com/...
Number of talks: https://www.ukrinform.net/...
The source for the meme appears to be a tweet from the Ukraine foreign minister. Zelensky has quoted similar numbers. These numbers are coming out of Ukrainian officials’ mouths and not 3rd party journalists and it’s not at all clear on how they’re counting since I can’t find easily any other sources.
Side note: with how bad Google is nowadays, people should never chide anyone else for being unable to locate a source themselves again.
humanspiral -3 points 2 years ago
Researching "20" is hard. Israel certainly likes to claim that other side breaks ceasefires. There is usually an opposing narrative.
Onarock 15 points 2 years ago
I agree with you about sources, but instead of asking and waiting you can search for them as well. I did a quick search for some of the information in the image and I got some results about 200 rounds of talks since 2014. Not ones I recognize so I can’t say if they’re legit or not but it only took a few seconds to get that at least that far.
Prunebutt -5 points 2 years ago
I'm not OP, though. Not everyone will do the googling themselves and if you're posting stuff like that, I think it's a responsibility of the OP to supply the sources.
Otherwise, that's the exact same strategy misinformation peddlers like LibsofTiktok use.
LePoisson 10 points 2 years ago
This isn't disinformation unless you don't believe Zelensky. Besides that, we're talking about large scale violations.
If you go digging you'll find literally 10s of thousands of violations, shit just look at this from 2017 https://osce.usmission.gov/...
I suggest using a search engine.
Prunebutt -5 points 2 years ago
This isn't disinformation unless you don't believe Zelensky.
yeah, not exactly the most unbiased source, I recon. If something is disinformation or not shouldn't really hinge on whether you believe someone, btw.
Besides that, we're talking about large scale violations.
So? Even easier to get sources, right?And even more suspicious that it doesn't ring any bells.
The sources you supplied are literally participants in the NATO/Russia conflict.
I suggest using a search engine.
Pardon my French, but: Screw you.
Macros 4 points 2 years ago
Whats wrong here? It should always be ok to ask for sources!
In this case the research is significant and it is reasonable to assume that avid readers here know the sources and need less research to respond quickly.
Here a quick overview:
Minsk Protocol (Sept 5, 2014)
Early on both sides supported militant groups with arms (e.g. the far right right Azov group for Ukraine and DPR for Russia), the governments did agree to a ceasefire, the groups didn't care and both sides violated it numerous times. Ukrainian supported troops were shelling near Donetsk (Sept 20, 2014) and the DPR executed full scale attacks. https://web.archive.org/...
Minsk II (Feb 12, 2015)
Ukraine did shell Horlivka (March 10, 2015) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Horlivka , killed civilians; claimed retaliation. The DPR tried to capture Debaltseve right before the ceasefire and failed to do so completely before it came into effect. As a result fighting within the city continued and the DPR even claimed the ceasefire did not include Debaltseve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Debaltseve so this was also violated by Ukraine too, but now we see a shift towards more Russian violations.
Later violations
The last violations where Ukraine can be assigned any noticeable role in are around 2020. Now that the military is more organized the troops do follow ceasefire orders more strictly and violations for ceasefires after 2020 can be nearly unilaterally assigned to the Russian side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements (follow the links from there to more recent ceasefires)
So the image/meme is mostly true but also propaganda (as to be expected). I also do not know where the number of 20 agreements comes from. I do know/find details of about 8. Maybe somebody else can provide a list?
So in summary: The message is true. Russia and mainly the DPR troops they support can not be trusted to follow ceasefires as long as the conditions at the front do not significantly change.
I like sticking to the facts and do not agree with the presentation in the image, but at least its still way way closer to the truth than Russian propaganda. In this case sticking to the facts would even have sent the same message and not give the Russians any point where they can base their counterpoint on. On the other side differentiated and detailed analysis is not that well suited to steer up emotions and support for the cause.
Phineaz -4 points 2 years ago
I absolutely agree on your point about misinformation. I was trying to hint that maybe none of this belongs here, despite me personally resonating with the "meme". I guess I am just rambling, don't mind me.
bestboyfriendintheworld 0 points 2 years ago
path: 0 15423437 15444191, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 2
bestboyfriendintheworld 0 points 2 years ago
Use archive.is to circumvent paywall.
MedicPigBabySaver 22 points 2 years ago
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
DicJacobus 7 points 2 years ago
Everyday life is a meme now
NotLemming 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 15431902 16131059, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
MystikIncarnate 17 points 2 years ago
I'm all for diplomacy. Finding diplomatic solutions to these kinds of problems is the ideal outcome.
When it's not ideal and you're dealing with someone irrational or uncooperative, then maybe fighting isn't the worst way to go.
Bluntly, I support Ukraine. They're clearly trying to make diplomacy work.
I can't say the same for Putin/Russia.
Arghblarg 16 points 2 years ago
This ^^^ so much
Do not trust Russia, and do not trust the US under current administration, or while the GOP still exists. We in the rest of the world are ON OUR OWN and must band together against this push of fascism across the world. This is not a drill, this is not a joke. Fascism is again on the rise, as it was in the 1930s. We all know where that led, so don't let it do so again!
rockerface 5 points 2 years ago
Oh he's worse than Trump, in that most of russia actually worships him. He's literally not giving his country a chance to think about alternatives.
humanspiral -9 points 2 years ago
Russians overwhelmingly understand this is a defensive war for them. The most extreme delusional propaganda we are fed is that provoking this war would help overthrow Putin with pro NATO liberalism. NATO is not a purely defensive alliance desperately trying to convince Russians of love and freedom from submission to them.
Smokeless7048 8 points 2 years ago
Yes, I'm sure Russians believe that invading another nation and sending their children to die is "defensive." After all, they're fed the propaganda of the fascist dictator, Putin. Just as the people of North Korea are made to believe the outside world is evil...
surph_ninja -8 points 2 years ago
The far-right in Ukraine was slaughtering ethnic Russians for 8 years before the invasion, and letting NATO move in missile & troop deployments to the Russian border. Yes, that kind of thing makes people feel as though they’re on the defensive.
Bubbaonthebeach 5 points 2 years ago
It is time that the world recognized that the USA is just like Russia and China. Never, ever to be trusted. All the pretense has fallen away under Trump but the real America, supported by 70% of its population, is showing its true colours. They've bullied their "Allies" for 70 years to be their friends, but they've never been a friend back. It's all been a guise to get whatever they wanted and steal all the riches a country could produce or make other country's industry beholden to American corporations. While previous American Administrations may have believed in the soft power their approach yielded and understood how it made the USA rich, Trump does not.
RymrgandsDaughter 5 points 2 years ago
Fuck Russia
WarlockoftheWoods 3 points 2 years ago
His only hope is going to be assassinating Putin and hope the next person ends it.
sasquatch7704 3 points 2 years ago
"But Putin is my BFF, he pinky promised that he would not do it again."
Gammelfisch 3 points 2 years ago
Zelensky should have said that to Orange Krasnov and the other fucking Russian assets.
lazyViking 2 points 2 years ago
Why can it not be uninformed, misled AND aligned with Russia (and stupid)?
lorty -4 points 2 years ago
Can someone explain how you are supposed to get Russia to leave? Sanctions didn't work, lethal aid didn't work, F-16s didn't work, and striking Russia itself isn't either.
You can argue for the war to continue I suppose, but Ukraine isn't winning and I'm not seeing anything here that would change that fact.
Makeitstop 16 points 2 years ago
Can someone explain how you are supposed to get Russia to leave? Sanctions didn’t work, lethal aid didn’t work, F-16s didn’t work, and striking Russia itself isn’t either.
These things haven't won the war, but they most definitely are working. Russia's economy is crippled, their military is running out of old equipment to cannibalize, and they lack the capability to produce the kinds of advanced military equipment they need. They've been throwing bodies into the meat grinder trying to overwhelm Ukraine, but despite the high cost they are making very little progress. This is not a great long term strategy, but it's the one Russia has been stuck with.
You can argue for the war to continue I suppose, but Ukraine isn’t winning and I’m not seeing anything here that would change that fact.
But what's the alternative? Right now Ukraine can only fight or surrender. While they fight, they can try to negotiate a peace deal, but so far the only deals Putin and Trump seem willing to consider are nearly indistinguishable from surrender. Give Russia everything they want, give up on everything you want, stop the fighting for now but put nothing in place to ensure that Russia won't just rearm and invade again later.
lorty -4 points 2 years ago
There's no evidence that Russia is going to lose steam economically or on the battlefield any time soon. Continuing to fight a losing war will only make any final deal between the US, Russia and Ukraine worse for the latter. There's a reason the 2022 treaty that was proposed looks unrealistic today, and whatever deal they make now will be much better than when they finally run out of men in the Ukrainian army.
With the situation as it stands, negotiating is the best way out if you actually care about Ukraine. If you just want to weaken Russia then sure, fight to the last ukrainian.
Jax 9 points 2 years ago
https://www.russiamatters.org/...
That's weird considering every single thing I've read about Russia's economy recently has been that it's going to collapse soon.
Edit: not a fascist
humanspiral -10 points 2 years ago
These things haven’t won the war, but they most definitely are working. Russia’s economy is crippled, their military is running out of old equipment to cannibalize, and they lack the capability to produce the kinds of advanced military equipment they need. They’ve been throwing bodies into the meat grinder trying to overwhelm Ukraine, but despite the high cost they are making very little progress.
Ukrainian propaganda that they've been winning all along. Russian military production is over 70% higher than at start of war, 30%/year last 2, and they gain territory every week with a weapons advantage including when new western arms shipments come in. Believing your fantasy is pro suiciding of Ukrainians.
The only deals Putin and Trump seem willing to consider are nearly indistinguishable from surrender.
The same deal from Russia was always on table for avoiding the war. Absolutely zero reason to think it was ever insincere or not meant to put both countries back at peace. If Ukraine's goal for a ceasefire is to rearm and resume terrorism operations on liberated regions of Ukraine, then Ukraine needs a new leader to get a lasting peace. Again, zero reason that Russia won't abide by peace it demands. US led Ukraine on the wrong track, and Ukraine Russia relations can get back on right track with "traditional attitude rulership"
Makeitstop 5 points 2 years ago
You're right, the Ukrainians should just give up on all these uppity notions of national sovereignty and self determination. They are in Russia's sphere of influence, their place is to do what Russia says. It's their fault if they don't listen and Putin has to give them a black eye, that's just him correcting them and showing he cares.
They should welcome their Russian liberators, so they can finally see how wonderful life under Russian rule is. Just ask the people of Bucha and Mariupol, they'll be happy to tell you (if you can find a Ouija board in Cyrillic).
BrainInABox -3 points 2 years ago
The Ukraine war has really opened my eyes as to how many people genuinely can't tell the difference between "is" and "ought"
humanspiral -5 points 2 years ago
give up on all these uppity notions of national sovereignty and self determination
Mostly right. They should retain their sovereignty of what's left of Ukraine. Give up ambitions of ruling over people they hate and have killed since 2014. They should realize that US puppetry did not pay off, and resume normal relations with Russia.
Bucha was a propaganda theater.
humanspiral -5 points 2 years ago
Trusting peace with Russia, I understand to be a difficult ask, but they were at peace before US control. The military production rate is verifiably serious, and by far the most dangerous aspect to be disinformed on.
LeFantome 13 points 2 years ago
Are you sure that Ukraine is not winning?
It is a war of attrition with Russia against the amount of aid the West is willing to provide to Ukraine.
The only way Russia wins is if the US changes the balance of power by enriching Russia (dropping sanctions) or impoverishing Ukraine (dropping support).
Valmond 9 points 2 years ago
The advances are minuscule (18% in thee years?!), and Ukraine is starting to have successes in the recent days. And they took a chunk out of Russia. And they interdicted the black fleet. And...
You know, catastropes arrive slowly, and then suddenly, you can't extract some future information about what's happening today.
lorty -5 points 2 years ago
Like I said: Ukraine has resisted and won many battles, but overall the war is not going their way. Russia has taken a small part of Ukraine, but it's most of what they've claimed as theirs. If anything, the coming catastrophe is more likely to come from the ukrainian side (with all the recruitment difficulties) rather than the russian one.
carpelbridgesyndrome 7 points 2 years ago
So they should give up and let Russia re-arm and try again?
bestboyfriendintheworld 6 points 2 years ago
The F-16s mainly replace the losses of Ukraine‘s Air Force.
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E 2 points 2 years ago
So you believe there is some magical weapon "X", when given to Ukraine, will make Russia leave? There is one, it's nuclear bomb lol. Other than that, it's not a specific weapon type that has to be provided, but a steady flow of a range of weapons.
lorty 3 points 2 years ago
The point I'm making is that they are receiving the weapons the US and Europe can make/spare, and they are still losing on the battlefield. If negotiating is not the way to go (as the meme implies) then what's the way to victory? As it's going, every man in Ukraine will die and they'll still lose.
qarbone 6 points 2 years ago
Oh, okay. So no need to fight wars anymore. We can tell who will win by eye. And the country who we eye-spot will lose the war should just throw away their sovereignty to the aggressors from the start since they can't win.
America spends the most on defense, so they'll probably win in any war. Then, I guess America should just de-facto rule the world. United Earth of America, everyone. Resistance is futile.
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E 5 points 2 years ago
"Every man" will not die, because they intentionally not mobilising the young men. They also did hold for several months completely by themselves while West was scared and only talked about sending diapers & bandage. They also survived when US stopped their aid completely for 6 month. It's been 3 years since the hold against a supposedly "2nd army in the world", so they are definitely not losing. They did an incredibly well job given their resources, if they ask for more, who we are to decide for them?
cybersin 1 point 2 years ago
"Every man" will not die, because they intentionally not mobilising the young men.
You mean literal children and university-age "men"? I guess everyone else dying would be fair game though, right?
What an insane statement.
lorty 0 points 2 years ago
The only reason they haven't lowered the age of conscription further is because it's very unpopular and the current government can't afford the political hit.
They have resisted to the best of their ability, yes. No one can deny that, but even then they are being pushed back more and more as time goes on. And that is, in fact, losing. Specially in a war of attrition like we are seeing.
thetemerian -9 points 2 years ago
They did an incredibly well job but are still losing the war and territory because Russia has more meat to throw on the battlefield and a bigger economy.
Dragging the war with foreign aid is not providing any resolution, it’s making the EU look as weak headless chicken who can’t come up with a concrete plan to stop a war on its doorstep.
Objection 2 points 2 years ago
Ah, but have you considered that the good guy always wins?
This seems to genuinely be how libs think about this. There's no need for any practical considerations about what is achievable or how long it would take or how much it would cost, because the people with the best ideas will always come out on top, no matter what. The only way to lose is to corrupt the purity of the cause and of the ideal, practical/material considerations are unimportant and somehow unclean and distasteful to even consider.
"Just world theory," I suppose.
cybersin 0 points 2 years ago
People expect Ukrainians to fight to the last man, for honor or some shit, and its gross. People are dying, and they've been at a stalemate for years. The outcome of this was never going to be good, considering the West has never given a single shit about Ukraine. Even before the war, the US toyed with them and blocked them from joining NATO for YEARS. With all the wars the West loses, you'd think they'd know when to call it off.
surph_ninja -4 points 2 years ago
Probably by getting NATO & the US out, and the far-right regime they installed dismantled.
surph_ninja -4 points 2 years ago
Russia has never asked for anything else. They don’t want Nazis on their doorstep. Who would?
Shezzagrad -9 points 2 years ago
A reminder, atleast Putin sees Ukrainians as his people just under the wrong leadership (even if it's imperialism and annexation). It's not like Israel where they want to wipe 5+ million people off the fucking region, ideally in concentration camps which is happening and documented. (Not endorsing Russia, I just fucking hate all of you)
lostbit 1 point 2 years ago
I don’t think russians and Putin do tho, they see Ukrainians as inferior
Daily executions of POWs and masacares like bucha, and not to mention targeting civilians on a daily basis.
Very similar to isrea/palestinia in that context
Shezzagrad 1 point 2 years ago
Daily executions of POWs and masacares like bucha, and not to mention targeting civilians on a daily basis.
What are your sources for this? Not disagreeing, but where are they targeting civilians and how many have been assumed killed?
selokichtli -10 points 2 years ago
Source: Zelensky.
For an interesting, not meme-like reading about these ceasefires, you could reach this timeline.
Lupus 13 points 2 years ago
The meme talks about 2014 to 2022, your sub stack post about 2021 to 2025, so one is talking about the conflict leading up to the full invasion by Russia, the other is talking about what happened after the Russian invasion. They are closely related but not the same.
selokichtli 0 points 2 years ago
No, not the same, but it's a good start point.
selokichtli -3 points 2 years ago
Okay.
AFC1886VCC -17 points 2 years ago path: 0 15423586, hotness: undefined, score: -17, children: 2
vaguerant 51 points 2 years ago
I think somebody has misunderstood a comment made by Zelenskyy at the International Summit on the Support of Ukraine, held this February just passed. Zelenskyy said:
We remember that Russia has violated the ceasefire more than 25 times since 2014.
Zelenskyy is talking about the ceasefire which formed part of the Minsk agreements. Representatives from both Ukraine and Russia signed these agreements, with the final protocol's first point being:
- To ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
This is the ceasefire agreement which Russia has violated. That is to say, there haven't been 20 separate ceasefire agreements, there was one which Zelenskyy told the Summit Russia had violated more than 25 times.
AFC1886VCC 8 points 2 years ago path: 0 15423586 15423764 15425210, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
surph_ninja -19 points 2 years ago
Ukraine had a ceasefire agreement 7 days after the invasion. The US & UK got them to walk away from it.
I also can’t imagine this ends with the current far-right regime maintaining their grip on power, nor being allowed to continue the genocide of ethnic Russians in the east.
surph_ninja -19 points 2 years ago
LoL. That upvote count. You bots can’t even feign organic.
index -20 points 2 years ago
As i just said in another comment: imagine the backlash if someone were to post something similar with putin face. People are being accused of being russian trolls for the slightest unaligned critic of ukraine government. I'm not questioning it but this post is what propaganda actually looks like
bestboyfriendintheworld 0 points 2 years ago
Both sides are the same.
Literally you
rinsler -22 points 2 years ago
Ah yes, good old "Let me post any literal shit because if readers want, they must prove it themself". That's impolite, but understandable. But for God's sake, to post logically malformed statements and wait for readers to indicate it is a whole new level of egoism.
Not tell me, proud democrat, if Russia invaded with its army Ukraine in 2022, then with whom was Ukraine reaching those mystical 20 cease-fire agreements 8 years before? About what were there agreements when there litreally was no Russian army and Ukraine was fighting its own regions for years?
petrol_sniff_king 7 points 2 years ago
there litreally was no Russian army
This is factually incorrect.
rinsler -2 points 2 years ago
Ok, then why post is calling 2.24.2022 russian invasion when according to you army was already there? More looks like epic russian pull-ups of reserves then?
Russia was supporting problematic regions to stand their own rights with arms and mens but nothing more. There were no official manifestation of russian intrusion. Even in the already mentioned here minsk agreements the main Kyiv opposition signs were from the DPR leader Aleksandr Zakharchenko and LPR leader Igor Plotnitskiy. Russian ambassador Mikhail Zurabov was only sideways witness along with Heidi Tagliavini OSCE representative.
petrol_sniff_king 2 points 2 years ago
But for God's sake, to post logically malformed statements
What country doesn't have an army? Russia obviously has an army. What else did they invade Ukraine with? The fact that you would leave this to me, the reader, to verify, is frankly ridiculous.
Mr_Dr_Oink 6 points 2 years ago
Ukraine and russia were at war in 2014 look up the minsk agreements. In 2022 putin decided the minsk agreements didn't exist and invaded ukraine.
Now before you say anything. This took me 1 minute to look up via google on a wiki page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/....
So proud, err. i guess repulican? Do you feel humbled at all by the evidence to backup ops picture i just provided?
rinsler -7 points 2 years ago
Claiming everyone with another opinion a bot (a metal with no feelings and rights for its own truth) is so democratic.
I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine. I left the comment only to this particular post because it is screaming unproofed propaganda for the dictator Zelensky.
petrol_sniff_king 7 points 2 years ago
> I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine.
> dictator Zelensky.
Lucky_777 2 points 2 years ago
What have you been doing for a year, then? Do you stand behind Russia and agree that Ukraine gives up its land to Putin, a known dictator? What evidence do you have that Zelensky is a dictator? Don't say elections because as you probably know he is following Ukrainian law by not holding them during war time.
surph_ninja -4 points 2 years ago
No, Ukraine was victim of a soft coup by the US in 2014, when they installed a far-right puppet regime, and then violated the agreements before moving on to a genocide of ethnic Russians in the Donbas region.
rinsler -6 points 2 years ago
"wikipedia-which-can-be-edited-by-anyone" is of course iron edidence to be humbled by.
But even if you take a little bit more time than just 1 minute to evaluate arguments or at least scroll that same page lower, you will see some interesting facts. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine was never planning to fullfill those agreements and Europe was only depicting diplomatic activity, trying to maximally arm Ukraine. None were giving a damn about people on the problem lands. Yes, they were obviously supported by Russia, but it was support, never ordering, in contrast to Ukraine planning to subjugate separatic regions.
So what again was the diplomatic role of the vaunted give-me-all-your-weapons beggar Zelensky?
Mr_Dr_Oink 7 points 2 years ago
So the line you are referring to:
Oleksii Arestovych, a former member of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine said in 2024 that Ukraine never planned to fulfill the terms of Minsk II accords.[124]
Is immediately followed up by this section:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been "an attempt to give Ukraine time"; Reuters reported that Ukraine used this time to strengthen its armed forces.[125] In an interview to Semen Pegov in 2024 former head of DPR Alexander Borodai explained that, in military terms, the Russian intervention in Ukraine should have started already in 2014 but Russia was not ready for that in economic, military and propaganda sense, which is why Russia entered the Minsk Agreements with no intention of complying, but it gave it time to prepare the full-scale invasion.
So it would seem that despite your insistance that the oroginal post is factually incorrect, and despite the fact that it would seem russia also had no intention of complying either. Russia did, in fact, break those agreements, making the original post at least partially correct. Ukraines intentions dont actually change that fact.
I think if you want to argue that the original post it propaganda, you should maybe back it up.
Mr_Dr_Oink 3 points 2 years ago
Also, i forgot to say.
How are you going to discredit wikipedia as something that can be edited by anyone and say that makes it an unreliabke source and then point to another paragraph on the same page from the same source and call it evidence to back your argument. Either the source is good or it's bad. You can't have it both ways.
Martineski -24 points 2 years ago
Fuck lemmy for leaking politics to every possible community and not removing it on user reports. What a cesspool of a platform.
Makeitstop 4 points 2 years ago
Do you think they know that you need two line breaks to make a paragraph? Or is it just hard to find the enter key on a Cyrillic keyboard?
Tattorack 4 points 2 years ago
Pff yeah, maybe. But this is just laziness, though; I've seen this exact block of text shared around on Reddit a few years ago, so this is literally just copy-pasta. OP just didn't bother cleaning up the text at all.
So honestly, I don't think it was posted with the intention to be read. Rather, this is just making a lot of noise... Uh... Grifting, if you will.
NastyNative -30 points 2 years ago
We are not just believing propaganda anymore. Ukraine can either work to stop this war or keep it going with out US support. Good luck to them! Russia can say the same about the NATO and Ukraine but that wouldn’t fit the agenda.
NastyNative -3 points 2 years ago
So nothing to add? Wonder who is be propaganda slave!
NastyNative -4 points 2 years ago
Yeah I spread facts not propaganda. Did NATO break its promise to Russia after Russia allowed democracy at its door step when Ukraine became a independent country?
GiveOver 4 points 2 years ago
Haha of course. An "oral agreement" that nobody has any record of. They called no takesies backsies, too!
Here's an actual promise that really was agreed to. Signed by Russia. In writing. You know, like what happens when countries actually agree to things in the real world and not in Russian propaganda la la land.
NastyNative -4 points 2 years ago
You are a scum bag just like Zelensky! - Providing dirty links should get your account deleted! -
Bamboodpanda 8 points 2 years ago
Oh, so we’re ‘not just believing propaganda anymore’—except for the part where you parrot Russia’s favorite talking points? Ukraine didn’t start this war; Russia did. Telling Ukraine to ‘work to stop it’ is like blaming a robbery victim for not handing over their wallet fast enough. If you’re done with propaganda, maybe start by questioning the one that excuses the actual aggressor.
NastyNative -3 points 2 years ago
When Ukraine gained independence, Russia's understanding was that it would accept the emergence of democracy on its doorstep in exchange for assurances regarding security. Specifically, the agreement entailed that NATO would not expand beyond Germany. In the early 1990s and again in 2000, Russia sought to join NATO, only to be rebuffed. NATO, in turn, has often relied on portraying Russia as a threat to justify its military expenditures and equipment buildup. The conflict in Ukraine was sparked in large part by NATO’s eastward expansion, especially its support for Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and the subsequent military aid provided to Kyiv. To understand this complex geopolitical issue more fully, it is important to engage with historical sources rather than be swayed by biased narratives.
NastyNative 0 points 2 years ago
Its called a strategic win if russia would have allowed NATO in Ukraine and war breaks out the front lines will be with russian territory.
NastyNative 1 point 2 years ago
Would you want a naval base from your enemy at your door step?
humanspiral -33 points 2 years ago
Ukraine's account of who broke ceasefires is as reliable as Israel's. During period in question, ethnic Russians were being massacred by nationalists such as Azov battalion paramilitaries. You'd need to examine each of the 20 ceasefires without playing favorites to get an honest account, which I can't do. Overall, Ukraine was the definite aggressor during this period.
Smokeless7048 10 points 2 years ago
spoiler: it isnt. HumanSpiral is a huge pro-war, pro-russia simp.
humanspiral -10 points 2 years ago
An unbelievably distorted western propaganda perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
The background of Donbas discontent is ommitted, but Apartheid laws and Odessa massacre, made these "insurgent terrorists" demand autonomy.
vga 3 points 2 years ago
Is this so-called massacre this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odesa_clashes where pro-Russian separatists attacked a peaceful rally by a much larger crowd, which led to an obviously just retaliation?
humanspiral -3 points 2 years ago
which led to an obviously just retaliation?
That's a pretty hopeless conclusion for it, but instead of a just retaliation narrative, the retaliation was against a different group than "clashers" (which you should'nt be quick to blame one side for instigating), where they burned people alive with US puppet government support. Overall, that Ukrainian nazification US puppet coup was the cause of unrest and destruction of Ukraine, and resistance from the ethnic/speaking Russian diaspora was the obvious just response as the creation of ISIS when Ian Bremer declared that no Sunni could have a government job in Iraq.
The Odessa massacre just exposed how evil/violent the new illegitimate government of Ukraine was going to be towards its minorities.
humanspiral -5 points 2 years ago
working class
UBI is power redistribution from rulership to people. Working class politics failed us in that Trump's empty promises sold better, along with a fair dose of voter suppression. Technology is what will kill working class. UBI lets people create their own job without the desperation of political champions to tell them that everything will be alright, while firmly committed to the oligarchy that will destroy their jobs.
Need to reset politics into the individual freedom of UBI, instead of "working class champions", because money brainwashes the working class into the mouths of sharks.
Scavenger_Solardaddy 17 points 2 years ago
Maga Shitstain spouting more shit lol
Enfors 13 points 2 years ago
Zelensky should stop the war
Why is it he who should stop it? Why not Putin?
Like so many have said, if Putin stops fighting, there will be no more war. If Zelenskyj stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine. One of these is the better option. I'll give you a hint - it's not the second one.
mathemachristian -39 points 2 years ago
i guess the continued shelling of civilians in donbass and the rise of the banderites is russias fault too
PhobosAnomaly 15 points 2 years ago
Your comment contains as many sources as there is punctuation marks. Do tell me more?
e: that came across as unusually short. I'm interested in learning of this shelling, I've not heard of civilian targeting.
dirigibles 6 points 2 years ago
path: 0 15423544 15423707 15424540, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
I went hunting for sources and found this. It seems to highlight the chaos in the region more than assigning blame.
mathemachristian 0 points a year ago
sorry I meant to reply but then forgot this account even exists lol. Here is a good list of links with an overview of the Ukrainian civil war from 2014 onwards:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7112898
specifially this documentary is interesting
surph_ninja -4 points 2 years ago
path: 0 15423544 15423707 15432740, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 0
rockerface 6 points 2 years ago
And then they suddenly have been doing it for 8 years
UnderpantsWeevil 2 points 2 years ago
banderites never “shelled civilians”
On 13 July 2014, mortar shells fired from Ukrainian territory landed in the courtyard of a private home in the border town of Donetsk. The shelling killed one civilian and injured two others
The Ukraine-Russia conflict has begun to sound a lot like the Israel-Gaza conflict, in so far as you've got these little media bubbles where "My side has NEVER done ANYTHING wrong and they just want to kill all of us, so everyone on their side is a valid target for shelling."
nesc -2 points 2 years ago
You were unable to understand a very short sentence? Alright, I'll bite.
Yeah, absolutely, these are very similar conflicts, essentially these are - one imperialist country is trying to completely erase another smaller one, by whatever means necessary. Again, even if this was done by UAF, this wouldn't have happened without r*ssian invasion.
humanspiral 0 points 2 years ago
Russian assistance to Donbas came after Banderite/Azov terrorism. Also, the ceasefire breaking accusations are against Donbas leaders who just wanted autonomy inside Ukraine until the SMO became the necessary action to protect them, and protect Russia against NATO.
Phineaz 11 points 2 years ago
I mean, technically sort of, yeah. Continued russian aggression and interference most definitely contributed to the rise of political extremism. Which just so happened to give the Kreml plenty of reason for further interference, such as the direct deployment of "volunteers" into the civil war.
Russia would have had the opportunity to support Russian communities in Ukraine peacefully, for example with beneficial trade agreements and cultural exchange programs. Unfortunately for these Russian communities, all the Kreml knows are diplomatic pressure and coercion and force of arms. As such, Russian culture was regarded as a mark of oppresion and the communities became targets of both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists - either as enemies, or potential agents.
Note: This is simply my, obviously non-comprehensive, personal understanding of the situation. Feel free to elaborate.
rockerface 15 points 2 years ago
Before the full scale invasion, more than half of Kyiv residents preferred speaking russian over Ukrainian in day to day communication, myself included. If the invasion never happened, I'd still be speaking russian. They literally did it to themselves.
rockerface 9 points 2 years ago
Right now I've switched to Ukrainian in almost all cases, so, right now, I don't. But, to answer your question about my past preference, it was mostly peer pressure. Most of my friends and large part of my relatives were speaking either russian or surzhyk (a sort of Ukrainian-russian creole, that varies depending on the region).
rockerface 11 points 2 years ago
Since both exist only in russian imagination, yes
me_irl
@lemmy.world
8353
2265
3885
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
go to feed...
me_irl
@lemmy.world
8353
2265
3885
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
go to feed...
If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately.
If Ukraine withdrew their troops, Ukraine would be no more - and there’s no indication Russia would stop there.
save