Maoo [none/use name] @ Maoo @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

366

Joined

2 yr. ago

It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that's a meaningless point.

UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

You're also losing the plot if you think, "Russia has more Nazis" is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.

Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don't matter. This isn't model UN or debate club, it's powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. "Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas" is a reasonable starting ask.

The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.

Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn't threatening anyone, it was undergoing "shock therapy", getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.

NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it's always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.

And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable

Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

This doesn't counter what I said at all.

UA isn't joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I've argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).

One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.

They may now, depending on how the war goes.

Delusional.

No idea what these points are other than just lies.

They're a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn't have expected "disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos" to be something you'd oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I'm confident you were unaware of basically everything I've told you given the babytime propaganda stories you've been telling me. You're welcome!

Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn't now.

It absolutely does. UA doesn't even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in "the counteroffensive" has been such a completr failure. No air support.

Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from.

I know you don't. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it's very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you've never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it's currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn't joining NATO.

???

The political leadership Nuland 'selected' was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That's like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

Sounds like you haven't heard the recording or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.

Can't find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or "bad" countries get.

Anyways, you should research better. Here's a starting point: the National Druzhina.

I'm guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I'd suggest going to some other sources.

You'd guess wrong and I think you're projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

They're very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn't be controversial.
2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO's advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.
3. Ukraine isn't joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.
4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, "you couldn't abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option". Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia's border. The failure od the status quo ans the West's ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.
5. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Like... at all. It's been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either

None of what?

And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.

Russia's initial negotiation demands were things like this:

• Denazification.
• Demilitarization.
• No application to NATO.
• Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
• Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also... the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.

Unicorn means one corn

Bruh you've gotta use vague signals and let the think tanks work with journalists to manufacture consent first.

Siri please help the red fash tankies keep telling me to read Lenin.

neoliberalism.jpg

With an extra dash of colonial seasoning.

You're not making any sense. Unless you think that NATO encirclement, the Maidan coup, etc, are all Russian false flags?

I don't see any of that, personally.

Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?

Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia 'green man'

The ethnic cleansing was and is part of official Ukrainian policy. Do you think the sneaky Rooskies infiltrated and forced Kyiv to drop Russian as an official language, one that could be learned and used in schools in Donbas? Did they cleverly rename the streets to Bandyerite fascist names? Did they create the Azov Batallikn, Righy Sector, etc - the Ukrainian fascist groups weaponized against the ethnic Russian civilians of Donbas and now directly incorporated into the government and armed forces? Did Russia secretly create the entire Kyiv side of the civil war that heavily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure on the Donbas side?

Cool to learn, I didn't know that.

It really doesn't. American aggression is found around every corner if you look at thr history and impetus behind this conflict.

Pro-ethnic cleansing apologia from feddit dot nl

Liberals are just as bloodthirsty as their fashy counterparts, they just need to have their own slightly different words for why it is okay.

It took like 6 months for mainstream liberals to feel 100% comfortable thinking of Russians as subhuman monsters deserving of any and all violence, dredging up old-school orientalist tropes, and celebrating snuff videos, making special exception for them so long as they are accompanied by a little story about how it's happening to Russians. A random Russian civilian got attacked by a shark in Egypy and liberals were rah-rahing for the shark.

Liberals will be pro-war until their corporate masters tell them not to be. Then, like with Iraq, they might pretend they werw anti-war the whole time.

???

You should do more listening to hexbears because that sounds nothing like us.

Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.

The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn't unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.

So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.

You should be angry at the propagandists that made you selectively trivialize genocide this way.

There is no ethics between capitalist states, there are only stratagems for how to exploit everyone else and not get exploited yourself.

Rhetoric about liberal world orders and rules and ethics are just propaganda to keep their own people complacent, like providing indulgences to themselves. They are wildly inconsistent and the self-named "good guys" carry out the absolute worst violence.

Those lifelong Ukrainian trade unionists locked in their union hall and set on fire? Yeah, just fascust Russian plants.

How did I arrive at such a smart and correct thought? I get that question a lot. Listen, tankie

So then we agree, America must be defanged at all costs