|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On April 25 2025 20:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I also think ceding Crimea is probably one of the easiest pills to swallow, and something Ukraine would be willing to do if the rest of the deal was palatable. Lack of security assurances and lack of self-determination would strike me as the absolute deal breakers.
Maybe I'm missing some but I feel the most contested areas are maybe the following?
1: The new border. Here, Crimea is the one Ukraine is most willing to cede, less willing to cede the other occupied territories.
2: Ability to join EU / NATO.
3: Security guarantees
4: Change of government to a pro-russian puppet
I think number 3 is an absolute necessity for Ukraine but it has to be more than an empty promise, and that requires them to at least join an EU with some type of mutual defense umbrella, if NATO is off the table. Number 4 is an absolute no. 1 is negotiable.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff like energy and food security and mineral rights but I think these are also more negotiable.
To be honest, I don't know that if Ukraine conceded everything, short of being fully annexed, Russia would take the deal right now. It might be in Ukraine's favor to demonstrate that to the world.
As things sit/with Trump at the helm of the US, Russia could almost certainly be in a better position 1 year from now and basically get whatever deal they could today, but better for them.
Whatever Ukraine thinks will get the EU to dramatically ramp up their military production/support and to provide a security guarantee without the US, whether Russia agrees or not, they should probably do. If Ukrainians don't believe they can get that, they should probably try to show that Russia has no intent of taking any deal until/unless some things change significantly against their favor (that aren't currently projected to do so by pretty much anyone).
I don't know what they're going to do (and I think it should be up to them), but it's increasingly feeling like they are going to get the Eastern European version of the Afghanistan treatment + Show Spoiler +(the US supported Euromaidan, but it was of Ukrainians own making btw, feel obligated to clarify this again).
It's not like any of this is really Ukrainians fault, but they are most certainly the ones suffering the most as a consequence of all this, and will continue to indefinitely.
In all honesty, I'm ashamed of the US's role in these repeated abandonments (Ukraine and Afghanistan aren't the firsts) of people they trick into believing it gives a shit about their well being rather than how exploiting rhetoric about their well being can serve US interests (read: billionaire interests). But also, I'd have been genuinely shocked if the US didn't eventually abandon Ukrainians once it was in its interests and leave them for "the wolves", be they Russian, US, EU, and/or Ukrainian oligarchs.
|
In which cases should people be expected to take a risk and make sacrifices for a better future that is still speculative, as no one can know the future? In which case should the lives of current people be prioritised over the speculated better future? These questions are especially interesting when you may not be the direct beneficiary of the better future envisioned, but could help it by taking risks and making sacrifices for the sake of others.
Are we sure that in most cases the default position is not "yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.”? There always seems to be an excuse for not helping right now. It is shitty how China is treating Uyghurs, but no action is to be taken to avoid economic turmoil. It is shitty how Erdogan treats his opposition and Kurdish people, but no action is to be taken to as Turkey is too strategically important. It is shitty how Qatar uses slaves, but they are too important ally against Iran and have a lot of oil. It is shitty how Israel treats Palestinians, but we need unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is shitty that people fall from windows in Russia, but those people could be spys and have not overthrown their tyrant. This also applies to domestic issues. It is shitty how poor quality/expensive/slow our healthcare is but we can't currently fix it. It is shitty how we treat transpeople but political capital should be spend on other things to guarantee votes in next election.
We do help sometimes, sure, but it is usually at the level of bringing human rights violations up in closed-door meetings or in strong words and finger wagging. Sometimes, the decade-long issues get just some thoughts and prayers, while public support for action exists. In other cases, we believe that working with them and strengthening economic ties will make the changes happen, as new wealth and our businesses will influence the culture enough. This seems very little compared to the problems people are actually facing.
There are usually even some demands before we should help in more concrete way. Do not protect your markets from us dumping our used equipment and overproduced shit on you. You must support us as our international agent. You must align your values with ours. You need to keep voting for us in the next election, as we currently do not have a strong enough mandate to act on the issue. These are not all bad goals, but they make the offered help very transactional. We are not helping just because it is right to do so according to our values. We help if you agree to our very open-ended demands.
Usually, at the same time, it seems that people are reluctant to take a risk or make any kind of sacrifices. When others seem to take them, they are likely to get criticised for causing more suffering. The current government of the USA is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but if a general strike were to occur, it could mean that people could lose their jobs or be deported to a gulag. The current economic systems have huge issues with how wealth is being distributed and how people are being treated, but any attempt to change things fundamentally could also lead to a worse situation. Palestinians should stop any attempts to oppose Israel and just accept their fate, because it is getting them and others killed by Israel. You should not bring politics into your workplace, as it may hurt the livelihood of coworkers.
After all this, it gets weird when views seem to go in the opposite direction. Ukrainians must continue the war and keep dying while fighting for a better future, which is as risky and speculative as in other cases. The suffering must be endured no matter what. Others will surely keep supporting even when their record in general is really bad. Thus, even in the case of failure, the next offer will be better. The support for Ukraine must continue regardless of how things are going in Ukraine or in other areas, even when this kind of unyielding support is unheard of in most other cases. Ukraine must be supported because it is simply the right thing to do.
The answers to the original questions seem easily contradictory when comparing cases. There is no cear principle in the actions.
I hope that at least some see how immediately saving the lives that are currently suffering from the war can be viewed as more important than the speculative benefits gained from continuing the war for at least a year or two. The risk and sacrifice can seem too much. If Russia really collapses and Ukraine gets all the land back, then history will surely view not going for a deal as a great success. However, if the war continues for two years without a notable change in the position of the frontline or Russia collapsing, and no better deal in sight, history is likely to see not accepting a deal as a waste of human lives. Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
I know that Putin is a despot like many others. I hope the trust in Ukraine's victory is right and that Russia collapses neatly, allowing Ukraine to regain its land and thus stabilise European security. I even think that we should support Ukraine in all possible ways. I even believe that it is truly the right and principled thing to do, and we should do the right thing more often. However, too many things have just gone wrong, that I can't be certain that this will indeed be the outcome.
|
On April 25 2025 18:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 16:06 Godwrath wrote:On April 25 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 18:29 Godwrath wrote:On April 24 2025 09:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 08:57 Falling wrote:On April 24 2025 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2025 07:09 Falling wrote:
Unless security guarantees/ NATO membership was a part of the package, I don't see in what world this can be seen as the 'lesser evil'. All this would be deferred evil, giving Russia a chance to consolidate their holdings, reconstitute their army, and stage into their conquered territories and finish the job in four or five years. They came back for Chechnya. Crimea was not enough to sate the Russian appetite but was simply used to stage into Ukraine at a later date. Why would this be any different? Europe has a way better chance of turning another Russian invasion of Ukraine in ~4-5 years into a better deal for Ukraine and Europe. Especially after also using that time to far outpace Russia's positional improvements to a degree they aren't dependent on the US, for their own, and Ukraine's benefit. "Deferring evil" is the lesser evil (typically is) than the current/immediate death and suffering deferring evil avoids. "Deferring evil" also provides the opportunity to avoid "the evil" in the future, by at least buying you time to change what happens several years down the road. Deferring evil is enough to make it the lesser evil to not deferring evil on its own, but also, there's a realpolitik rationale for it being Europe's best option (though arguably not Ukraine's if one is on the most optimistic side of the spectrum for Ukraine's current situation militarily speaking). Is it buying you time? Yes, it's literally buying the Ukrainians that will instead be dying today, tomorrow, and indefinitely until there is some sort of peace (however it comes about) their lives and millions more the end of constant bombardment under war and all the horrible things that come with that. It buys them years of negative peace by your own estimate. How many is less certain, but we all see how/why it's in Russia's interest to find a deal themselves now, as well as potentially violating that deal at a later point. That only assumes you'll be in a better position next time. + Show Spoiler +Whereas, we are as close as we've ever been to exhausting Russia's material. Would a push from a coalition of the willing tip the balance?
Western democracies are as close as they've been in a long while to rearming. Four to five years from now? If there is one consistency it has to be that democracies (except the USA) don't like to spend money on the military during peacetime whereas tyranny prioritize it always.
That's four to five years for all of us to draw down while Iran North Korea Russia and maybe China on the sly? ramp up, adapt to what they learn and come back stronger.
Russia isn't on its back foot yet but it can be made to be. A few years from now, I'm not sure.
Remember, Russia didn't do so hot in the first war in Chechnya but they aren't dumb and the second time it was lights out.
You are also making the biggest case for more land war and nuclear rearmament. He that is strong let him take it will signal to every country with dreams of empires. And he that has no nukes, let him surrender. The nuclear arms race begun again. We could speculate about what the situation might be years from now + Show Spoiler +(like who will be president of the US, whether the US will be in NATO, and whether it matters if Europe wants to give Ukraine a security guarantee of their own without the US) , but the fact of the matter is that accepting/formalizing a deal now saves lives immediately and dramatically improves the quality of life for millions of Ukrainians for years. Rejecting the deal means those years would instead be filled with their continued deaths and suffering. Arguing them rejecting the deal is the "lesser evil" is the position that requires a bunch of assumptions about western democracies choosing to use the time under negative peace to be wilfully neglectful and end up in a worse position in the future. This is so hypocritical I genuinely don’t even know where to begin. If Ukrainians want to fight for their freedom, I’m absolutely in favor of supporting them. I’m not going to be the condescending asshole who shrugs and says “yeah, it’s a shitty situation, maybe we’ll help... eventually.” + Show Spoiler +You’re supposed to know better. But in your crusade against Western society, you’ve completely lost the plot on this one.
Say it with me: Putin is a fascist, imperialist asshole.
And no — the enemy of my enemy isn’t automatically my friend.
But the people suffering under the boot of a fascist imperialist?
Yeah, they are. You guys are so goddamn close to getting it. You gotta at least see how close that is to being taken verbatim from MLK Jr.'s "white moderate", and/or the contradiction regarding Palestinians. Maybe it really is as simple as me not saying "Putin does horrible things" enough. Oh i don't get it. Explain it to me. Let's see how you contort yourself pretending you are not the "white moderate" in this thread. Also, do it, but don't take for granted my posture regarding Palestinians, which if you are able to read behind lines, it's very obvious. I'm guessing he's deliberately being the white moderate in an effort to make us understand how unacceptable the slow progress / lesser evil / halting of the worst without fighting for the good is to those who are in most immediate need of improvement. Then I'm guessing there's a parallel between: Ukraine = Palestine, Russia = Israel, Trump regarding Ukraine = Democrats regarding Palestine, and that we should be as appalled with how the democrats approach the issue of Israel/Palestine as we are with how Trump approaches Ukraine/Russia, and that if Trump's handling of the Ukraine/Russia issue is unacceptable to us, then we should also feel that way about how Democrats handle Israel/Palestine. In a way I think it's a fair point to make but it still doesn't tackle the lesser evil dilemma of the two party system, because for that to be the case the democrats would be the current Trump-approach to the russian invasion of Ukraine while the Trump-approach would be like.. giving Russia the most advanced American weapons technology? not merely extorting Ukraine, and while I frequently employ the socratic method when teaching I don't think forums are a good medium.
Saying that apples are oranges and also pineapples because they are all fruit is not a good point, it is the reason we have the whole apples to apples saying. He is just crow baring one of his few points he makes over and over, then acting condescending when no one agrees. And apologizing for him doesn't help.
If he wanted to have some aha moment happen he would have to make connections that his audience agreed with and then reveal his point. On top of that he would have to build some trust so that people didn't all instantly think it was a gambit/trick in the first place. And to be remotely successful he would also have to do it as a peer or at the very least show some respect to other people and their thought processes.
But if you have not figured out that this has nothing to do with him "educating" anyone and everything to do with making him feel special, you just have not been paying attention. You don't purposefully insult and basically be sandpaper to everyone because you are looking to grow a movement.
|
On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages.
I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile.
|
On April 25 2025 21:10 jodljodl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 20:11 Dan HH wrote:
Constitutions can be changed and often have to be changed when faced with extraordinary circumstances. There's gotta be lots of precedents of countries ceding territory despite it being unconstitutional beforehand. From what I understand, the "deal" also didn't require Ukraine itself to recognize Crimea as part of Russia.
This is not something they wouldn't be able to get over, the main hurdle is the complete lack of security guarantees.
I didn't check any historic examples, I totally get what you're saying and yes, maybe there's a workaround. But §157 refers to war times and the territory specifically. No changes of the constitution in wartimes or when it comes to territory. I don't know if that's a common thing in constitutions. The wonderful thing about constitutions is that God does not enforce them. People do.
If a country decides that they no longer wish to follow (part of) their constitution then they can simple do so. It doesn't matter if there is no means for it. You can take a sharpie and cross a section out and so long as everyone agrees that this is the new truth then it is.
|
BUT THE HOLY DOCUMENT.
Sorry it's getting harder and harder not to let a shitpost out.
|
United States42186 Posts
On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile.
I agree with everything you said.
In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
|
Not to mention the fact that those very elections were fully recognized by Russia itself.
|
|
|
On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning.
Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE.
I mean, whats the worst that can happen?
|
On April 26 2025 03:37 maybenexttime wrote:
Not to mention the fact that those very elections were fully recognized by Russia itself.
They wavered on this. Glazyev very explicitly stated about 1-2 months before maidan that if something like it happens that Russia is not going to tolerate it. The elections in 2004-2008 were also very much a case of Russia wavering, but back then they had much more political influence in Ukraine so it was less apparent. The "Novorossiya project" was also already formulated in around 2013, they pursued it quite aggressively for about 2 years after Crimea got annexed, with little results. Zelensky's election represented the possibility of achieving their goals through diplomatic means, or alternatively to buy more time.
|
well look who is talking and listening now.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5269036-donald-trump-volodymyr-zelensky-rome-meeting/
+ Show Spoiler +
President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, both in Rome for Pope Francis’s funeral, held a “productive” meeting early Saturday as the U.S. looks to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.
“President Trump and President Zelenskyy met privately today and had a very productive discussion,” White House communications director Steven Cheung shared Saturday. “More details about the meeting will follow.”
The Ukrainian delegation posted an image of the two leaders sitting across from one another, staring eye to eye inside St. Peter’s Basilica — where Francis’s funeral procession was held later Saturday morning.
The meeting — which lasted roughly 15 minutes, per Ukrainian officials — comes in stark contrast to their last face-to-face interaction, when Zelensky abruptly departed a White House meeting after a fiery spat.
Other foreign leaders, including French President Emannuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have also lobbied for a truce in the over three-year-long war, while continuing to offer funds in support of Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty. Macron and Starmer also spoke briefly with Zelensky on Saturday, according to Ukrainian officials.
|
As always Trump is heavily influences by who last talked to him, so sure in a 1 on 1 conversation Zelensky can make good progress. Question is what happens once Trump gets back to his handlers.
|
On April 26 2025 16:07 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine. I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning. Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE. I mean, whats the worst that can happen?
Sorry, but in your media sphere is Iran having democratic elections? What do you think the other parties platforms are?
Also, doesn't your narrative on Ukraine breakdown when unlike what the Russian narrative said, when basically no one welcomed Russian forces and everyone else fought against them? If yours was true when the big army of freedom came wouldn't they have all joined?
|
On April 26 2025 23:10 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 16:07 zeo wrote:On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine. I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning. Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE. I mean, whats the worst that can happen? Sorry, but in your media sphere is Iran having democratic elections? What do you think the other parties platforms are? Also, doesn't your narrative on Ukraine breakdown when unlike what the Russian narrative said, when basically no one welcomed Russian forces and everyone else fought against them? If yours was true when the big army of freedom came wouldn't they have all joined?
Based on my discussions with Iranian people they are in a theocratic dictatorship. While most of the country is not religious. So I assume any free election would get them kicked out instantly.
|
Those discussions aren't particularly useful. There are thousands of migrants who claim that they came from a theocratic dictarships that somehow continue to exist for years despite most of their countrymen not being religious. You can hear that shit from Poles, Turks or Central Asians and it will never be true. There are no theocracies there but those countries are and will remain more religious than core Western nations for decades. Some people just can't accept the reality.
|
On April 25 2025 21:04 Jankisa wrote:
I think that Zelneskyy and Ukrainians in general are projecting a hard stance on Crimea in order to improve their negotiating position, and it makes sense.
The only risk there is "antagonizing Trump" but it's not like that can get any worse, he's clearly playing for the other team anyway so it makes no sense to try to appease him further.
Oh, but it can definitely get worse.
US forces will be leaving Europe sooner or later and Trump (if annoyed enough) is just the type that might just accelerate the process by decades.
There is a good argument to be made that it's exactly the Russian play in agreeing to these absurd conditions.
|
On April 27 2025 04:16 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 21:04 Jankisa wrote:
I think that Zelneskyy and Ukrainians in general are projecting a hard stance on Crimea in order to improve their negotiating position, and it makes sense.
The only risk there is "antagonizing Trump" but it's not like that can get any worse, he's clearly playing for the other team anyway so it makes no sense to try to appease him further.
Oh, but it can definitely get worse. US forces will be leaving Europe sooner or later and Trump (if annoyed enough) is just the type that might just accelerate the process by decades. There is a good argument to be made that it's exactly the Russian play in agreeing to these absurd conditions.
Why is that worse in the context of this war? If they already stopped sharing the intel that positioning is gaining, what does Ukraine gain by the US having bases in Germany?
It is likely bad for the other European nations but don't see why it matters for Ukraine unless it slows European aid, which there is no reason it should.
|
On April 26 2025 23:10 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2025 16:07 zeo wrote:On April 26 2025 01:46 KwarK wrote:On April 26 2025 00:39 Jankisa wrote:On April 25 2025 22:08 Legan wrote:
Calling people caring for the lives of Ukrainians, who are currently suffering, to be spewing Russian propaganda, is simply vile and very destructive in political discourse.
There is a very big difference between someone just talking about how terrible this is and how Ukrainians are suffering and it should stop while advocating for more help to Ukraine and literally repeating Russian propaganda in the form of: "The west orchestrated Maidan", "Maidan was led by nazis and it was very violent and bloody", "Candians had a Ukrainian nazi in the parliament and clapped for them" and many more that were spewed out over the last few pages. I'm not sure how you are reading that but I've seen enough of this horrid bullshit that I have 0 patience for it and whoever is peddling it, 11 years into this to go around and spread lies and interpret data without taking into consideration at any point that all of this was caused by Russia is vile. I agree with everything you said. In addition I'll add that the revolution has been followed by multiple democratic elections. The Ukrainian government is not the revolutionary government, it did not come to power through a revolution, deposing a democratically elected government. The revolution has absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of the current government which is the democratically elected government of Ukraine. I guess you could also argue that the Iranian Revolution had no effect on the subsequent governments that came to power there through elections and that the current government has nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. The last few American Presidents had NOTHING to do with the American Revolution, zilch, nada. The entire system of government would be exactly the same today if the Revolution never happened. I mean, Soviet heads of state after Lenin didn't come to power in revolutions right? That would be crazy to assume the political system somehow changed after the October Revolution. Its almost as if cause and effect and historical context are real terms with actual meaning. Of course the violent and unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government by hardline nationalists would have no bearing on any future elections. Only the corrupt eurocentrics, bought and paid for by foreign governments intent on using Ukraine like a battering ram had executive power. The hardline nationalists only had infinite soft power and free reign to do as they pleased in the country. So what if the banned the largest political parties opposed to them? Banned any media opposed to them or that looked into corruption? Banned and violently suppressed any protests against them? Banned languages and made sweeping education reforms aimed at homogenizing the political landscape? Eighty percent of non-state owned media being on the payroll of one foreign country and 60% of media just stops working if funding is cut has absolutely no bearing on the political landscape and elections. NONE. I mean, whats the worst that can happen? Sorry, but in your media sphere is Iran having democratic elections? What do you think the other parties platforms are?
The point made in that post wasn't about free elections, rather, that the political systems of countries that undergo revolutions are fundamentally changed and influenced by them after they happen. But you knew that was the point didn't you?
Also, doesn't your narrative on Ukraine breakdown when unlike what the Russian narrative said, when basically no one welcomed Russian forces and everyone else fought against them? If yours was true when the big army of freedom came wouldn't they have all joined?
You're right, no civilians live in the areas not controlled by the Kiev government.
|
On April 27 2025 04:16 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2025 21:04 Jankisa wrote:
I think that Zelneskyy and Ukrainians in general are projecting a hard stance on Crimea in order to improve their negotiating position, and it makes sense.
The only risk there is "antagonizing Trump" but it's not like that can get any worse, he's clearly playing for the other team anyway so it makes no sense to try to appease him further.
Oh, but it can definitely get worse. US forces will be leaving Europe sooner or later and Trump (if annoyed enough) is just the type that might just accelerate the process by decades. There is a good argument to be made that it's exactly the Russian play in agreeing to these absurd conditions. I would call the US leaving European bases an boon, not the situation getting worse. It would push the EU harder to be able to defend itself, thereby also improving the EU's ability to support Ukraine without the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/AP25116384506726-e1745668678319.jpg?w=640&h=360&crop=1)
