Trump refuses to say if he wants Ukraine to win the war
1y 9mon ago by lemmy.world/u/jeffw in world from www.semafor.com
He'd give up on Ukraine. And call it a win.
"Winning the battle is worth losing the war"
(Trump, The Art of the Deal, pp. 179-181)
"I could make a deal with Hitler to stop this war tomorrow!"
Yeah pretty much.
Aka appeasement. We tried it Donny. Though this time it's Trump who wants to be dictator.
Trump doesn’t care so long as Russia keeps paying him.
That's a short sentence for that many pages. I knew it was in big print, but...
It's illustrated so his voters can understand the book
From the chapter: "Yeah, but remember that one time..."
The Jews would have had peace if they'd just let themselves be taken to camps peacefully.
This is less funny because Russia literally did commit a holocaust in Ukraine.
or maybe extort them again.
Yea, that infuriated me.
He didn’t answer a single fucking question about anything, just ranted about illegals eating pets the whole time.
It was obvious as hell that he wants Russia to win.
All we have to do is make him president elect! We don’t even have to inaugurate him!
You'll get all the Logan act violations you seek if you act now!
This gets me - if he's that fucking clever then he should have ended it by now. And he says he's good friends with Zelensky, how? Do they go out drinking together? They've probably spoken twice. America should be ashamed of Trump the Liar.
America should be ashamed of Trump the Liar.
Americans capable of feeling shame are. Unfortunately, his base is incapable of feeling shame, so there's no effect there.
They're capable of feeling shame, just not for good reasons. Like, they can feel ashamed of thinking a trans person is hot.
Has he not done enough already for that wretched, glorified petrol station they call a country.
He is in a LOT of debt, financially and politically, to Russia. And he also is desperate to win, because if he loses he's going to jail. He'll do anything Putin wants him to
What makes you think he hasn't already been given the favor years or decades ago and how he's the one repaying it and he'll get nothing in return?
Mostly the fact that Trump never pays his debts.
I have to wonder if the potential for accidentally falling out of a window goes any way into affecting the way he approaches certain debts.
No. If Trump were capable of conceptualizing losing and suffering consequences he wouldn't do half the shit he does.
Can't argue with that one lol
Of course he does, he's a bought man.
Yea, what a POS he is for pretty much admitting this. Not that we didn’t know this already.
This stood out to me. Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
That question is awkwardly worded, why are you putin it that way?
Just not russian to any conclusions
Tsar right to know if he’s compromised.
Moscows are fat. Trump is fat. Coincidence? Probably not.
?
Moscows=most cows
Ah.
Thanks
Fun fact: at his mother's deathbed, Stalin reportedly told her that he had "become something like the Tsar". Perfectly accurate FWIW.
What is confusing to me is why would it matter to Putin if Trump lied here? The Russian mode of government is lying and deception after all.
Does he actually think that his voters want Ukraine to lose? Oh fuck, do his voters actually want Ukraine to lose?
They've been listening to the Russian trolls and bots.
And bought and paid for Tim pool
Their line isn't that Ukraine should lose, it's that America shouldn't give them money while homeless vets, Ukraine is corrupt, biden crime family, nato expansion, etc. Which coincidentally are all Russian talking points.
Those damn russians, constantly bringing up recent history like that.
Didn't Hunter get like millions of dollars from both Russian and Ukranian oligarchs? It's so cool how the kids of politicans always end up with these sweet deals- and to think Trump is claiming to be the deals guy
Oh thanks, I forgot hunter Biden.
Now go and Google what the Budapest memorandum was.
Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to "force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will." Russia suggested that the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum and described the Euromaidan as a US-instigated coup.
Yes, the CIA psyop'd over 70% of the country to support joining the EU, then forced yanukovitch to say "screw that we love Russia" and piss everyone off. And the totally organic resistance movement in the east that happened to have russian equipment and... Soldiers? Yeah just the people self determining or whatever.
So what about the ethnic Russians, and the rest of the non-Ukranian speakers?
There was a base of people (30% per your post) who didn't support this and when the government cracked down on resistance, city centers ended up shelled with artillery for years.
Just a shitty situation to get caught in the middle of, frankly. Did you support NATO intervention against Serbia when it used its military on a breakaway region?
Funny how those cities still stand after 7 years of shelling. Meanwhile there are several Ukrainian cities that simply don't exist anymore but we'll only see you criticizing Ukraine.
Also I love how you say "government cracked down on resistance" as if that wasn't part of euromaidan first. They cracked down on pro EU protesters first. Then you gesture broadly at the ~30% who didn't support joining the EU or didn't care as if that's some sort of justification for a Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine. Which happened in 2014. That led to the fighting in those regions that you mentioned.
They still stand and the others do not in part because Russia intervened, the ones that have been under siege recently have all been used as military strongholds for quite some time. They're not civilian centers, the civilians in Donvas didn't exactly have many options.
Did you support Serbia keeping it's territorial integrity against a breakaway region too?
They still stand and the others do not in part because Russia intervened
Russia didn't "intervene," they started the fight by annexing Crimea and donbas. There have been 3,400 civilian casualties in the donbas region between 2014 and 2021. There have been 35,000 confirmed Ukrainian civilian casualties between the start of the invasion and July 2024. Remind me how Russia is trying to protect people again? And if this really was just about those regions, why not take them and stop? Why is Russia trying to take kyiv?
Also trying to whatabout about NATO is idiotic. I only referenced the Budapest memorandum. If you want to blame "NATO imperialism" for forcing Russia to invade a soverign country, then I have two questions. Why are there now two more countries in NATO than before the invasion? And do you honestly think NATO would invade a nuclear power? If so, to what end?
It's fine I don't need to engage further with you
Aight later. Before you go, I already had you tagged as "tankie?" Are you like this for China and best Korea too or just Russia so I can update my tag?
I'm an anarchist, but I have plenty of issues with pretty much every country, I just have too many family and family of friends entangled in this to not want to see peace, regardless of where the lines on the map end up for now. I don't think there's anyone who is proposing a truly deescalatory position, across the board and that's the problem.
Half the big right wing youtubers are getting paid by Russia.
Yes. They want Ukraine to lose.
I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).
I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won't fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there's still a theme of making it clear that you're ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward "but should we spend our money?" to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.
I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
The whole reason he tried to keep weapons from Ukraine was because he was given instructions by Putin to make Russia's planned invasion easier.
Trump being Trump, he tried to extort some political favors or of Zelenskyy first, but clearing a path for Putin was always the goal.
Putin's mum.
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win?
Yes, I think there's this one man, Trumps big idol, I think his name was Vladimir the war criminal Putin.
This needs to be very widely publicized.
It was a presidential debate. It was fairly publicized.
I think maybe they mean... Like, not washed out by the other 90 minutes of crazy shit he was saying.
Oh no doubt. I only wish she hadn't spent so much time explaining what a fucking idiot he was instead of taking about herself or her plans. He made all those talking points for her by, well, talking... It was a great beat down nonetheless, and I get it was her one time to really make a fool out of him in person, but again, he did that better than anyone ever could.
Great show overall, would watch season 2.
She walked him like a dog. Flatly stated he could be easily manipulated, and proceeded to do just that. He could not even muster the courage to make meaningful eye contact with her the entire debate. She just stared him down and dominated him. How brutally emasculating for him.
Watching it made me so hungry, going to doordash some fried kitten.
I dunno, I just read an article about that country's political debate from last night and it didn't mention this point, it was mostly discussing how angry that bloke got at the other politician and how overall it seems like it was a bad night for him and a good night for her.
The specifics were a bit overshadowed by the perceived importance of the event and it's outcome itself, I think.
I'm sure in the coming days some more details will flow out of the USA and we'll hear some discussion of specifics where they concern us, like their politician's stances on the war in Europe, I agree. I've just not seen it mentioned just yet is all.
But it's only 7am and I think the debate was in the middle of the night, so I shouldn't expect much yet haha :-D
But Kamala Harris should have poited that out and reminded everyone that Trump wouldn't answer. Then it would be her jabbing him instead of some talking head no one knows letting it pass. Missed opportunity.
It will not put off his voters. Some of them just don't care about anything international. Others admire Putin as a strongman who isn't afraid to kill his enemies and persecute minorities, a moral conservative, a self-professed Christian, an ally against democracy and a defender of the same bigotries they share.
He doesn't just need the MAGA faithful to win. I can't believe I have to keep saying this.
You're right. The hope is that they're not enough and he fails to attract anyone else.
I don't think he's gaining voters and I do think he's losing them.
It won't. Because people are hung up about the eating pets thing. Which, insane as it is might have happened.
Idk why the actual issues are swept under the rug, and the controversial takes are the focus.
I feel like when Harris said that Putin would be sitting in Kyiv, Trump didn't understand. "Why would he be in Kyiv, Putin would be at home, happier of course" because he's taking it literally like a fucking idiot.
And yes, Trump, of course Putin would be happier with you in charge when he invaded. The Biden administration gave crucial Intel in the months leading up to the invasion and military support. Harris 100% deserves props for being involved in that.
He also still refused to admit he lost four years ago, and admit any fault or regret for Jan 6th. And he showed zero remorse or awareness about the Central Park Five. Pure deflection for every single question.
He knows he can't say Russia but he doesn't want Ukraine to win so he does this.
Russian Asset. Better dead than Red.
Not only this, but they rephrased the question asking if he thought it would be in America's best interest to win the war and he declined to answer again...
I found it interesting that Trump claims if he wins the election, he'll have the Russia / Ukraine conflict resolved BEFORE he even takes office. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's how I interpreted what he stated.
If that's the case, then it seems like he could choose to end the conflict at any time. Why doesn't he just end it now? Save countless lives. Minimize injuries. Prevent suffering. Save money. I'm sure that'd change some voters' minds if he did it. Might even win him the election.
Yes, this is a rhetorical question. I have no doubt that he can't actually end it without basically giving in entirely to Russia.
That's not true, he very clearly answered that he's stronger than Superman and smarter than Batman.
He could beat Batman for sure, especially with prep time to make a concept of a plan.
Of course, he wants Russia to win, duh
Putler is betting on trump to win. If Harris wins, it's over for him.
Well, officially, Putin supports Harris, but who knows with that deranged man.
He endorsed her specifically so that Trump would say that in the debate. And he did.
And how do you, pray tell, know that?
Because I don't live under a rock.
But you do since you just guess. I quote known sources, and you pull shit out your ass.
Please explain why Putin would endorse the person who says that Ukraine should win the war over the person who won't say that.
I don't need to explain anything. Again, I'm just citing facts, and you're guessing. But honestly, how much do you think your armchair analytics are really worth? Or anyone's for that matter?
I just cited facts too.
Harris wants Russia out of Ukraine.
Trump refuses to say what he wants Russia to do.
Why would Putin sincerely endorse Harris? I think you know the answer is that he wouldn't.
Because you, quote 'don't live under a rock', was that the citation you consider a fact?
Again:
Harris says Ukraine should win.
Trump will not say who should win.
This happened last night. I heard it with my own ears.
So, again, why would Putin support the person who wants him to lose the war? Because, again, I think you know the answer.
They could actually just be dumb and ignorant, but I think we both know they have their motives.
But holy mother of god!; what's your source I mean?
My source of what? Those two claims? Again, the debate last night. Putin's obviously bullshit endorsement of Harris? I can give you a source, but I'm not sure what your whole point here is if you didn't know about that.
Yes, of course, your source of why Putin made the endorsement, the source I asked for about 5 comments ago....
And, as I have explained to you multiple times, I do not need a source when I can make a basic inference from the facts at hand.
If you can come up for another explanation for why Putin would endorse the person who wants him to lose the war, let's hear it.
Otherwise, you're just harassing me because I said something mean about Putin.
Does it ever occur to you to just concede for once and save so nich time and effort: 'No, sorry, I don't have a source for my claim, I simply made a conjecture that I believe to be correct'.
I bet it never even crossed your mind because you're so goddamned sure of yourself since apparently 'you don't live under a rock'.
And now you are violating our civility rules. If you continue to harass me or are uncivil to anyone else, you will be taking a break.
I would appreciate it if you would give me an alternate reason for Putin supporting Harris please.
Sure, go ahead by all means, or you could take this as an opportunity to learn and grow as a person.
I am connected to the Russian hivemind, can confirm that we prefer Harris to Trump, he's just too unpredictable.
I don't need to explain anything.
Don't be coy; you simply cannot.
You exist in bad faith, this goes so far beyond debate at this point lmao
I just cited a quote. What do you want from me exactly(?) holy fuck...
There's a big difference between citing facts and citing a statement. You likely have no evidence that the statement is a fact, besides taking the ex-kgb leader of an adversarial nations word at face value, which...does sound a little silly when you say it out loud like that, doesn't it? Keep in mind this nation has definitely messed with our elections in the past too lol.
The statement is the fact, and I put no more value to it than that. Make of that what you will, I really don't care
You are citing a statement, and it is a fact that the statement was said, but the content of that statement is not a fact because there's very little evidence to support it being a fact. Lies exist, especially from the election meddling, ex KGB foreign adversary national leader types.
You didn't quote anything
Here's a guy who believes things that come out of Putin's mouth, over his own eyes and his own government.
Remind me, which side just got busted for being literally paid by Russia to post pro-russian propaganda about the election and Ukraine? Wasn't that conservatives? If Putin wants Kamala, why is Russia paying American conservative influencers millions of dollars to sway voters away from her?
Lmao I don't really give a damn. I just quoted Putins' own words, make that what you will and the fact is he supports Harris apparently.
I know you quoted Putin's own words, that was my whole point lol. He said those words in response to the US GOVERNMENT saying that he is paying conservative influencers to influence the US election.
So, which source do you believe, Putin, or the US government? Go on
I dont really trust, either to be honest. What has the US government said on the matter?
The US business that was implicated has been named as Tenet Media, which employs Tim Pool and Benny Johnson, noted Trump supporters. Each of whom was being paid $100s of thousands of dollars by Tenet, who was in turn being paid directly by Russia. Tenet has since shut down and the creators are lawyering up.
Here's an article from BBC giving more details about who was involved, with quotes from the conservative influencers that took the money, and from the DOJ. I will put some quotes below but I strongly suggest you read the whole thing because it does seem like you personally have fallen victim to this Russian propaganda.
“While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, the subject matter and content of the videos are often consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Government of Russia interests, such as its ongoing war in Ukraine,”
The platform's two founders "admitted to each other in their private communications that their 'investors' were, in truth and in fact, the 'Russians'", the indictment says
Editing to add the actual indictment for you, since we care a lot about sources in this thread! https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1366266/dl
No, I mean that the US government claims Putin support of Harris is false or a charade.
Thanks. Not a surprise, really. But they also claim Iran is supporting Harris's election, it's just all over the place.
If you're just going to quote people and accept it as fact, I have the metal scrapping rights for the Eiffel tower for sale and I'm willing to do so for cheap.
Better than armchair conjecture, tbh.
Armchair conjecture is exactly what you're doing
No, ffs, I was just citing official sources, that's the goddamn opposite
Well, officially, Putin supports Harris, but who knows with that deranged man.
So first of all, that is "armchair conjecture".
Second of all, you've already admitted just because Putin says it doesn't mean it's true.
Third of all, what is your reaction to Putin's support? Sounds like "be careful of Harris, Putin supports her." Do you think Putin is an idiot? He knows that's how people will react.
Not supporting someone just because Putin said to is just as stupid as supporting someone just because Putin said to. Either way you're letting Putin make your decisions instead of thinking for yourself.
Yeah 'who knows', I don't.
So how the hell is that conjecture lmao?
Man, for someone who doesn't know anything you sure do go on a lot about things you know nothing about.
Yeah, like what?
That's the thing you can't trust putins own words lmao
Nobody "knows" it, but it's totally within character for both of them.
Trump is so predictable he reliably fell for Harris' obvious bait about his rally attendees etc.
It's not farfetched to assume Putin, who is actually quite skilled in the art of manipulating people, would attempt to use Trump as a pawn in this manner.
Yeah well see therein lies the problem. There is a difference between knowing and not knowing, something that seems to matter next to nothing to people anymore
Let's say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?
That's because officially Putin knows who he supports has negative connotations for the electorate.
Whoever Putin visibly puts his weight behind is the opposite of who he wants to win.
It's also so the MAGA rubes (who mostly secretly root for Putin) can say "See Trump don't balong ta no won cause Pootin was for the Kamunist!"
He of course supports Trump, he just likes to mess around Western politics
So much conservative talking points about Kamala is pro-genocide with no evidence.
Like motherfucker, your main boy has zero plans and has a history of flying by the seat of his pants and having Americans killed.
Reminder that Zelenskyy basically called Trump's bluff on his plan, encouraging him to share it now.
That's why he's nothing more than vatnik kompromat.
Hes avoiding turning off potential voters just like a typical politician
Putin can't vote.
He votes in the same way businesses vote. Bankrolling politicians.
He does, he votes early and often.
I thought Americans (at least the ones who watch MSNBC) all agreed he voted in the 2016 election
All those Republican Senators love MSNBC.
You know, there's good people on both sides. People with a lot of value and good ideas. It reminds me of my businesses, so many good people. There's a lot of good people in this world. You know what else is good? Watermelon. It's a melon.... Made... From water. How incredible. It's delicious. How do they do that?
- Trump, probably.
Translation: He wants Russia to win the War and for America to be signed over to the Kremlin, but he knows he can't say that aloud
I want to save lives that are being uselessly
Yeah that sounds about right
Same reason you don't see tankies in this thread.
The one thing he can't obvious lie about directly.
He has said several times before that he would end the ruzzian occupation by making a deal with them. Most definitely a loser's deal where Ukraine would give up land.
Everyone else with half a brain cell left in our brain and with some heart, we think ruzzians should get the fuck out and pay for all the damage and murdering. That's the negotiation that needs to happen. And you see, am just a regular person with a low IQ. I'm sure Harrys will do way better. And I'm sure any person could probably do better at least at deciding if ruzzia is doing something bad.
Semafor - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Semafor:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.semafor.com/article/09/10/2024/trump-refuses-to-say-if-he-wants-ukraine-to-win-the-war
Major update: politician acts like a politician.
What does "win" even mean? NATO starting World War 3? Well, they're getting there.
Fuck you
What'd I miss?
Trolling
2 hours old account. Hey Russians, try harder.
Fuck is wrong with you?
Me and my popcorn wanna know what this guy's deleted comments said
Just came to agree, fuck Ukraine. All these drones have no real knowledge of that situation literally on the other side of the planet.
Ok? The US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of. These invasions were supported by a majority here and believed to be justified. We invaded countries on the opposite side of the world. Russia invaded their neighbors, basically their extended family, and we're supposed to get involved and support one side or the other? The only reason it's a big issue is because it's pushed my certain political and powerful people. I'm willing to bet 50% of the money "sent to Ukraine" just ends up in the pockets of politicians and leeches here.
You all need to stop claiming "whataboutism." It is called a comparison, and if you supported it or not, it was a good comparison.
Comparing isn't "deflecting." The fact that you also compared how you also didn't support the US invasions to the Russia invasion kind of proves it was a fair and relevant comparison. YOU should consider calling some things "whataboutism"s is sometimes "deflecting".
What about China genociding uyghurs
(Don't mind me just comparing)(Lmao you're a tool)
Comparing for what reason?
That's just Whataboutism, you know it
Basically most of it ends in the hands of the military industrial complex.
It's sad to see that the libs are just as post-truth as the magats are. The doublethink is honestly astounding. Not only is the US and NATO good (except for gaza) but it's also evil to invade other countries that pose a threat to national security (unless the US does it). Everything Putin says is a lie and he's Hitler and will always attack if we let him. Nato is completely harmless and a NATO armed Ukraine never was a danger to Russia except now when they managed to hold their own for so long and now shoot back into Russia after being so well armed by NATO. Why would the Russians not like NATO? Russians are Orcs because they are Nazis, except Nazis aren't Nazi's if they are Ukrainians. There was never any interference with e.g. the Euromaidan coup except we welcomed Ukraine into NATO and the EU with open arms and the CIA works excellent together with Ukraine intelligence services. Oppression is bad but Slava Ukraina and banning Russian is fine. Anyone who wants piece is a warmonger and Putin apologist. We are finally the good guys again! Stop the whataboutism of the entire history of US meddling and coups and illegal wars!
The historical facts are pretty clear how this conflict came about and why. It was a miscalculation - They didn't think Russias economy could support so much arms manufacturing. They also thought China wouldn't back Russia. But of course they did because they know they are next lol. There have been like 40 meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping and this war has brought them together. They are expanding BRICS and making new connection with the global south.
Of course this is still a win-win for the US empire and the oligarchs however this ends. They won't let it escalate to nuclear war and the wealth transfers are massive. The only losers are the taxpayers and the Ukrainians and Russians.
Lets not talk about the insane level of greenhouse gases emitted because of this war.
Love it! Thank you for that. I have been corrected and concede. I mean damn, that was well-informed.
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn't get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn't matter how many die or whether there's anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they'd asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she's willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who's consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Hmmm... I'm a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
(and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant)
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don't understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don't get to tell them it's wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
I don't give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don't think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can't see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can't help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can't tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can't help you. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia's invasions.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren't one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. "Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves." That's all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say "Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad"?
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don’t understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don’t get to tell them it’s wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
So let me make sure I've got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that I'm not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I don't like the way "murderer" sounds, so I don't apply it to myself. You don't get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let "Nobel Prize winner" be defined as, "Lemmy.ml user." I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how I'm using the term, so it's valid and you don't get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can’t see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can’t help you.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I don't agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when it's your nation's geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren’t one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. “Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.” That’s all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say “Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad”?
It's very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I don't hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are "wrong". That's not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn't know your definition. Your argument isn't a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
I haven't said anything about my positions on any topic. I'm not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists don't, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you don't like it, and now collapsed into "I guess all words are meaningless then". It's not my problem that you don't understand how words work.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don't have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think I'm wrong, you can correct me. I didn't assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?
Are you saying you don't support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same "I'm just asking questions, I have no opinions" bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say "America bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesn't like them."
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are “wrong”. That’s not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn’t know your definition. Your argument isn’t a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
OK, great! So, if you accept that I'm a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, let's use "Nazi Germany" whenever we're talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?
You seem to think that I don't understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. I've picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If you're really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesn't matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don’t have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
I didn’t assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use.
Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or don't only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You can't call someone a murderer because that's a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because that's not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them "A person who murders people?" Does that count as a label? What is it that's so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesn't apply to other words?
Are you saying you don’t support Russia?
No, I don't, they should seek peace.
That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?
No, they should seek peace.
Of course not!
Incorrect.
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.
I have. The "secret positions" that I'm supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.
You seem to think that I don't understand that language is mutable and collectively defined.
You literally still don't get it. It's not that it can change and is collectively defined, it's that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.
What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation.
Ahhh ok. So you think it's manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they don't use it the way you, a person who isn't a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
Oh, so you didn't say any of those things? You didn't say you were a communist? You didn't reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you haven't been excusing Russia's actions (like talking about "Ukraine bombing civilians in the Donbas" ) and trying to argue against Ukraine's? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?
Are you saying you don’t support Russia?
No, they should seek peace.
That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?
No, they should seek peace.
Of course not!
Incorrect.
I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They aren't. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they haven't raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.
I have. The "secret positions" that I'm supposedly hiding are entirely your invention
Cool. So we're just going back to pretending that you've been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because you're incapable of defending them!
your version of "pacifism" is completely meaningless, and that by your standards, you could still call yourself a pacifist while taking any side in any conflict.
Hey buddy, I'm not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you don't like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white "for or against violence in all forms" kind of pacifism. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you don't agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.
Your definition of pacifism is indeed meaningless, manipulative, and self-aggrandizing, intending to steal valor from the association with people who actually stand by their strongly held moral convictions against violence.
Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how it's complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. You're not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesn't mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didn't even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You don't get to define that term for them.
yOu KnOw YoUr PrEvIoUs CoMmEnTs ArE sTiLl ViSiBlE, rIgHt?" God you people can be insufferable. I stand by everything I said in my previous comments, none of which in any way contracts what I'm saying.
Ya, it's totally me that's been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didn't say "I'm a communist" or "I look to Lenin" in your previous comments. Got it.
How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?
Oh ya, it's totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should "seek peace." Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time I've interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?
Look I'll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:
People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you don't actually want a better world, you want one where American doesn't exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for "the revolution" while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our "revolution" in a way that totally wouldn't result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.
Again, putting words in my mouth, inventing positions whole cloth based on nothing and assigning them to me. You sure like assigning things to people just so long as they don't happen to be phrased as labels, huh?
What the fuck did you mean by "Russia should seek peace" then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They don't need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to "seek peace" you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.
Obviously not. I've stated my positions numerous times. I even offered to explain the theoretical influences behind my positions. This time, you're taking words out of my mouth lmao. I guess that's a nice change of pace.
No one cares about the "theoretical influences" of your opinions. You've been "just asking questions" while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasn't.
It appears that I don't need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman you've invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.
And you totally didn’t say “I’m a communist” or “I look to Lenin” in your previous comments. Got it.
How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?
Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.
Btw, if I didn't know better, I'd say you just assigned the label of "tankie" to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them 🤔
Don't you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it's that easy, then I definitely don't think people should be going out and dying over it, there's just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That's a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won't.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you'll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what's your timetable then?
It's a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won't listen, I guess.
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the 'good' folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it's not our blood to commit, it's the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it's their skin in the game, not our forces. It's their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to 'a couple of provinces' is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that's what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn't claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually "pro-war". In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being "pro-war".
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it's easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn't the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn't significant "gray area" to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren't useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually "caving" to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the "let the dictator win without resistance" strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here's another example of "letting the dictator win without resistance." The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30's and the situation now, and even then it's only one example, and one that's vastly overused. And the reason that it's overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. "If we don't beat them now, they'll keep coming forever." All you have to do is paint the people you're fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it's intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So "appeasement" worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more "gray area" so it's hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn't actually have a horse in the race doesn't apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don't have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
Then why is it so easy to say that modern Russia would continue expanding forever? Isn't it possible that Putin is more like Kaiser Wilhelm than Adolf Hitler?
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace.
They do though. They could negotiate peace at the cost of territorial concessions, the same way the Soviets did. It's not that the Soviets didn't have a dog in the fight, they surely would've preferred a better treaty that preserved more of their territory, but they prioritized peace instead.
This isn't entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it's already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.
Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire
No, he has not. Source.
Okay, you're sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here's a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I'm sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they'd receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don't know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that's acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn't been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it's all in Russia's favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it's lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that's not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup'ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90's? Hey, wait a minute...
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that's how it's going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren't happening.
Well you've decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don't have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
I made a guess, if I'm wrong, explain it to me.
You didn't make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don't try to weasel out of it now. You're clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
Lol, ok. So you don't have an answer, got it.
I do have an answer. You told me what it was, remember?
You're playing games to avoid answering because you can't.
If you apologize for putting words in my mouth or someone else asks me, I will answer. Until then, we'll just go with your mind-reading answer.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I intended what I said to be a supposition, not an actual claim of knowledge regarding your beliefs, but I can see how it could've been interpreted that way.
Now if you would please answer the question.
Sure. Your concept gives Ukraine nothing and Russia everything. A better negotiation would be that Russia returns to the borders that were negotiated with Ukraine after they gained independence, borders they agreed not to cross if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return the world will lift sanctions against Russia. Everyone gains.
How does that prevent Russia from attacking at a future date? It seems like your objection to my proposal that it would only stop the war, "For now" is just as much of a problem in your proposal. As such, I think that it's an invalid objection and can be dismissed, seeing as you seem to be perfectly happy with a proposal that contains the same possibility, if it's the one you prefer.
So, that being the case, I submit that an agreement where the killing stops is mutually beneficial to everyone, not just Russia, and that throwing more draftees at fortified Russian positions is not worth the potential territorial gains.
There is no way to ever prevent a hypothetical future invasion of any country. As I said, Ukraine already made a deal with Russia for this to not happen. Any country could send its military over its border any time, regardless of any negotiated peace in the past.
You cannot future-proof treaties. It's not possible.
Exactly my point.
Your point is that treaties shouldn't be negotiated equitably because they can't be future-proofed? Because that sounds like a "let Russia do whatever they want" argument.
My point that any peace agreement will contain the possibility of future conflict, so pointing that out is not a valid criticism of a specific hypothetical peace agreement.
Yes, if Ukraine agrees to some territorial concessions, it won't guarantee peace for a thousand years. If they reclaimed all their territory, it wouldn't do that either. But it would stop the killing and could provide the framework for a lasting peace. That's a better deal for the average Ukrainian that being drafted and thrown into a warzone to reclaim some rubble.
Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace. You, once again, are saying Russia should get everything and Ukraine nothing.
Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace.
Yes, it would be. Assuming the civil war was also resolved. The problem is that getting there requires throwing a ton of more lives into the meat grinder, which is worse for the Ukrainian people than accepting territorial concessions.
A withdrawal as part of a negotiated treaty would kill more Ukrainian people? How?
What's your plan for getting Putin to agree to such a proposal?
Russia returns to the borders that were negotiated with Ukraine after they gained independence, borders they agreed not to cross if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return the world will lift sanctions against Russia. Everyone gains.
Russia isn't going to accept those terms, it's unrealistic.
It's unrealistic to expect Putin to accept any terms beyond "Ukraine is Russia's," but you were talking about negotiations as if he were willing to negotiate.
Neither part of that is remotely true. Putin has not claimed all of Ukraine, and he has offered to negotiate. For example.
It's Ukraine and the US that have refused to negotiate.
Your link says he wants to keep all of Ukraine he captured as an essential part of the so-called negotiation. That is about as serious an offer to negotiate a ceasefire as what Israel has put on the table and I think you know that.
Also:
In his 2021 essay "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians", Putin claimed there is "no historical basis" for the "idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians"
A ceasefire along current lines is a hell of a lot more realistic than demanding a full withdrawal as a precondition for talks.
It seems like just a bit of a leap to go from an essay challenging the idea of Ukrainian nationhood to saying that Putin will reject all negotiations and won't accept anything less than full annexation.
Do you think Hamas would accept a ceasefire along current lines?
Did you notice where I showed you that Putin thinks all of Ukraine is Russian? Because you didn't mention it despite claiming that he didn't think that.
I don't consider the Palestinian genocide to be a comparable situation.
What I said is that Russia is willing to negotiate and doesn't demand full annexation, as you claimed. This is objectively true, as evidenced by the link where they offered a ceasefire along current lines. I've yet to see you admit to being wrong about that.
The essay you linked does not show your false claim about demanding nothing less than full annexation to be true.
And now you're lying. This is what you said:
Putin has not claimed all of Ukraine
He literally claims all of Ukraine in that essay.
I don't think it is worth continuing if you're just going to lie.
You're making another giant leap again. His essay just questions Ukraine's national identity, that's not the same the same as asserting a right to all of Ukraine's territory. I have not lied, and I won't continue either unless you apologize for that false accusation.
Putin claimed there is “no historical basis” for the “idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians”
He's literally saying Ukraine and Russia are the same nation. How much more blatant does he have to be?
He's making a claim about history that seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, but that is not the same thing as saying that all Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia. At present, it's just a theoretical argument.
He’s making a claim about history that seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, but that is not the same thing as saying that all Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia.
Please back this up with evidence. I gave you a direct quote.
Putin claimed there is “no historical basis” for the “idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians”
There's your evidence. Don't know what else to tell you. He could try to use that argument to claim all of Ukraine's territory, but he has not claimed all of Ukraine's territory, the quote simply does not show him doing that.
...
What quote are you reading? That is literally him claiming that.
This is some weird as fuck gaslighting.
It's literally not.
In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.
Do you think he's also claiming Belarus?
Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state? Yes.
Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state?
That's also not true.
Sorry, I'm talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that's where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.
Just saying, like, "I think we have a common heritage" is not the same as saying, "All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it." The distinction is enormous.
Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.
If I say, "Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC" (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they've made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that's just your opinion about Putin's opinion, it's speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that's a fact, because that's something that's formalized. But when he's talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it's explicitly applied to the present day, it's not an actual claim.
Me:
Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state?
You:
That’s also not true.
Me: [shows multiple sources about how Belarus is a Russian vassal state.]
You (ignoring that):
Let me take a step back
No, let's not. You're not here in good faith. I'm done.
But fine, they are not technically the same country.
I thought you had conceded the point. Guess I misunderstood.
You're a fucking coward and you speak like a child.
I've never read such dumb bullshit in my life... until I found your comments...
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
And Kamala refused to say whether babies can be aborted at 9 months. Politicians being politicians.
EDIT: She didn’t respond to the Chinese tariffs question either. Stop glorifying politicians. None of them are being straight with you, because they’re playing the fence for votes. You can admit that politicians are bad AND you can still support and vote for them.
That's an amazingly stupid take from someone who apparently didn't watch the debate.
Trump claimed that babies were being aborted at 9 months and after they were born. This is a lie he repeats over and over at rallies that you apparently do watch. The moderators made it clear that that was illegal in all 50 states.
Why would Harris need to debunk something insanely stupid that the moderators already debunked?
Trump kept saying abortion after 9 months, they put the baby aside and decide it's fate. They execute the baby. And the debate just kept going on.. how in hell can the debate just keep going on after that?
Sane response would be to "wait what?!" Stop everything wtf are you talking about?
Abortions after birth?
Yeah that's called murdering an infant.
Pls, provide the sources you obviously have on this.
I would thought the "give a kid an Ar-15" would had made that obvious
We're in a thread that's discussing the former president of the US actually claiming shit like this, so no, there's really nothing you could say that would "make it obvious".
I think you're in denial about how fucked up US politics is.
Once again, I remind you that a former president, in a presidential debate, claimed these things. So it doesn't matter if you're talking about them jokingly, he wasn't.
"I'll make it obvious that I'm trolling", you said just in your previous comment.
You can't, because of the reality we live in.
How is this hard for you to understand? US politics is so absurd that there is literally nothing you could write about it which would be obviously untrue.
"Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen"
Several times now I've tried explaining this. No matter how much you jeered and winked mentally while posting that, the world (or US politics rather) is in such a state, that there's no way of differentiating that from someone who actually was serious with it, since those people do actually exist.
I'm really not. The point is that nothing you say after that really matters, unless you've put in a direct mark that it's humour, ie a ";)" or the more commonly used "/s".
Otherwise, it is literally impossible to tell if you're serious. I've repeated this like a dozen times now, how are you still finding it hard to understand?
At the rate we're going, it's always too soon.
The moderator answered that, because it was a moronic question to ask.
Was that a legit question?
The answer seems kinda obvious.
Because it's not a thing.
An abortion at 9 months is to remove a dead baby from the whomb (leaving it in there kills the mother too). Babies die in utero.. it's horrible but happens.
Same as with babies that are born with previously undiagnosed developmental or birth defects that turn out not to be viable.. it's horrible but it happens.
Keep messing with medical care for political reasons and more mothers and babies will die..
Noone is removing a viable baby and then killing it. But since every accusation is a confession, I'm now worried about republicans.
She rolled her eyes at the claim. That was enough. Only idiots who were going to vote for Trump anyway believe that.
The only one vying for babies to be abortable at 9 months is this god fellow in the form of miscarriages.