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 May 23 2025 20:21 Velr wrote: Being neutral is not the same as being willfully blind or allways trying to stand in the middle of two opposing parties or points.
Standing in the middle between two opposing parties or viewpoints is literally the definition of being neutral.
Attacking someone because they do not explicitly hold every single one of your views without explaination or second thought is plain zealotry. If you live in a bubble where an extreme viewpoint is the only viewpoint, it can create the illusion that even a slightly differing opinion is on the other end of the scale.
It doesn't mean a scale outside the bubble doesn't exist
On May 23 2025 20:21 Velr wrote: Being neutral is not the same as being willfully blind or allways trying to stand in the middle of two opposing parties or points.
Standing in the middle between two opposing parties or viewpoints is literally the definition of being neutral.
Yeah, if you got the understanding of a 5 year old.
He get's attacked for stating again and again disproven bs while linking an article that doesn't even agree with him.
On May 23 2025 20:21 Velr wrote: Being neutral is not the same as being willfully blind or allways trying to stand in the middle of two opposing parties or points.
Standing in the middle between two opposing parties or viewpoints is literally the definition of being neutral.
Yeah, if you got the understanding of a 5 year old.
He get's attacked for stating again and again disproven bs while linking an article that doesn't even agree with him.
His opinions backed up by links to material that back up his claims were not disproven by hysterical appeals to emotion or any other of the alphabet of logical fallacies on display over the last few pages.
He was answering the statement 'peace between x and y is impossible' with 'well in fact it cant really be all that impossible because peace talks have already been a thing between x and y'.
Being on a forum where the majority of posters believe in flat-earth, posting about the Earth not being flat is an uphill battle. The majority think they have actually 'disproven' your statements with 'facts' or ad homineim attacks about you having the intelligence of a 5 year old. They get more and more agressive and emotional the more right they know you are.
I'm confidant in my opinion, why would I get mad if someone tells me the lizard people want to genocide us? So I don't think there is no merit in telling them the World isnt flat or explaining to someone why that opinion might the the result of their bubble.
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
On May 23 2025 20:21 Velr wrote: Being neutral is not the same as being willfully blind or allways trying to stand in the middle of two opposing parties or points.
Standing in the middle between two opposing parties or viewpoints is literally the definition of being neutral.
Yeah, if you got the understanding of a 5 year old.
He get's attacked for stating again and again disproven bs while linking an article that doesn't even agree with him.
His opinions backed up by links to material that back up his claims were not disproven by hysterical appeals to emotion or any other of the alphabet of logical fallacies on display over the last few pages.
He was answering the statement 'peace between x and y is impossible' with 'well in fact it cant really be all that impossible because peace talks have already been a thing between x and y'.
Being on a forum where the majority of posters believe in flat-earth, posting about the Earth not being flat is an uphill battle. The majority think they have actually 'disproven' your statements with 'facts' or ad homineim attacks about you having the intelligence of a 5 year old. They get more and more agressive and emotional the more right they know you are.
I'm confidant in my opinion, why would I get mad if someone tells me the lizard people want to genocide us? So I don't think there is no merit in telling them the World isnt flat or explaining to someone why that opinion might the the result of their bubble.
I read the article and now will get spam in my inbox from that website for the forseeable future for it.
That article doesn't state what he and you think it does. That he (and you?) despite reading it, don't get that, is the issue at hand. Thats why there is no serious discussion with you.
But let me spell it out in short for you: That there were talks and drafts of "possible" peace deals, doesn't make a peace deal feasible. As to why that is, well, the article states the reasons. I suggest you go read it.
On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote: No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality. The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory?
Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it.
"laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion.
And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets.
You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view.
Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on.
How does your personal opinions become basic facts?
Do you know what is an opinion and what is basic fact?
It's your interpretation of what you read, not what was written nor what was happening. So yes, we see you as little stubborn and simple minded but let this be a little bit of love and attention you crave so much.
Who is 'we' exactly? Are multiple people using your account? You really should inform these multiple personalities that bandwagoning and ad hominem attacks against neutral opinions dont help their cause.
On May 23 2025 23:24 Sent. wrote: If zeo considers his or ETisME's posts "neutral opinions" I'd like to see what's pro-Russian in his book.
It's interesting to find just how easily people are influenced by Russian propaganda. This is a wide digression, but a Norwegian political party "FOR" ("Peace and justice", an offshoot of our "Red" party) just had a huge ad campaign claiming we should stop supporting Ukraine, in favour of supporting peace. Very noble if you're braindead and don't know the situation. Less noble once people started digging and found that the ad campaign was financed by a millionaire who operates a huge business in Russia, lives there for much of the year, and have previously claimed that Ukraine supporters should be bombed.
You can not take anything anyone who pretends to just be "in the middle" claims at face value. It's all Russian propaganda bullshit thinly veiled behind "noble causes" because they know their actual stance isn't supportable by any ethics or morals. Because anyone who have done even a hair of digging knows that peace can not be achieved as long as Russia is willing to genocide more men for the cause of moving borders.
On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote: No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality. The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory?
Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it.
"laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion.
And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets.
You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view.
Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on.
How does your personal opinions become basic facts?
Do you know what is an opinion and what is basic fact?
It's your interpretation of what you read, not what was written nor what was happening. So yes, we see you as little stubborn and simple minded but let this be a little bit of love and attention you crave so much.
Who is 'we' exactly? Are multiple people using your account? You really should inform these multiple personalities that bandwagoning and ad hominem attacks against neutral opinions dont help their cause.
We would be the people who believe the narrative that Ukraine was a sovereign country allowed to choose their own government and allies. And then your we is those that believe the Russian narrative that Ukraine is one of their vassals.
The peculiar thing is that in your group is far right and tankies. Why do you think that is?
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. 2014 crimea was a seperate conflict. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there can be no negotiation. You brought up China and Taiwan, they still made deals even when historically they are in direct hostile relationship for past decades, with Taiwan regime being denied as anything legitimate. They still coexist and made deals even if ultimately china will invade taiwan in 10-1000 years. So you yourself should know you have a pretty weird chain of thought.
Not all war ends with complete destruction of the nation or regime. Even if there's a deal, there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already.
Whether a deal can be strike is just based on what's on the table. Longer the war drag on, the losing side will have to accept more losing position. This should be something even a 5 years old get.
Somehow this is a pro Russia stance and difficult for you to get.
If you do truly think this is the final existential war for Ukraine, and Russia will never let Ukraine be, then I guess you calling for the total destruction of Russia regime and revamp their education and media sector then? Obviously just defending ain't good enough, can't have guarantee they wouldn't invade again, am I right?
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there is no negotiation. Not a war ends with complete destruction of the nation. Even if there's a deal there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already.
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. 2014 crimea was a seperate conflict. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there can be no negotiation. You brought up China and Taiwan, they still made deals even when historically they are in direct hostile relationship for past decades, with Taiwan regime being denied as anything legitimate. They still coexist and made deals even if ultimately china will invade taiwan in 10-1000 years. So you yourself should know you have a pretty weird chain of thought.
Not all war ends with complete destruction of the nation or regime. Even if there's a deal, there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already.
Whether a deal can be strike is just based on what's on the table. Longer the war drag on, the losing side will have to accept more losing position. This should be something even a 5 years old get.
Somehow this is a pro Russia stance and difficult for you to get.
If you do truly think this is the final existential war for Ukraine, and Russia will never let Ukraine be, then I guess you calling for the total destruction of Russia regime and revamp their education and media sector then? Obviously just defending ain't good enough, can't have guarantee they wouldn't invade again, am I right?
Posts like this are why you’re dismissed as being completely ignorant. None of the shit you’re saying happened.
There wasn’t a 2014 deal and fighting has been going on since then. Using the 2014 deal model as an example of how to end hostilities doesn’t work because
A. There was no deal, you imagined that B. There was no end to hostilities, you imagined that too
But if we set that to one side then sure, we can make a peace modeled on it. Not sure why we would do that too because even if A and B were true and not things you imagined, didn’t Russia just invade again in 2022? Even in your fantasy world where you get to make the scenario up your plan still didn’t actually work.
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. 2014 crimea was a seperate conflict. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there can be no negotiation. You brought up China and Taiwan, they still made deals even when historically they are in direct hostile relationship for past decades, with Taiwan regime being denied as anything legitimate. They still coexist and made deals even if ultimately china will invade taiwan in 10-1000 years. So you yourself should know you have a pretty weird chain of thought.
Not all war ends with complete destruction of the nation or regime. Even if there's a deal, there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already.
Whether a deal can be strike is just based on what's on the table. Longer the war drag on, the losing side will have to accept more losing position. This should be something even a 5 years old get.
Somehow this is a pro Russia stance and difficult for you to get.
If you do truly think this is the final existential war for Ukraine, and Russia will never let Ukraine be, then I guess you calling for the total destruction of Russia regime and revamp their education and media sector then? Obviously just defending ain't good enough, can't have guarantee they wouldn't invade again, am I right?
No, you are not right.
It’s called a security guarantee, something Ukraine are seeking, above most else.
Sure, in an ideal world Ukraine would rather Russia weren’t cunts. But they’re not seeking some anti-cuntishness reprogramming, merely ‘if Russia are cunts, will other people protect us?
That’s that, it’s not a negotiable. For obvious reasons.
Your patter is nonsense. China hasn’t invaded Taiwan. If it did, I wouldn’t be in favour of a ‘peace’ that involved Taiwan just doing whatever China wanted either. And I’m a neutral observer, I’m not Ukrainian or Taiwanese.
Your posturing is ridiculous, there’s no justification for the war in the first place.
If I walked to your house and just continually beat the shit out of you, nobody would be sitting around claiming I sorta had a claim to beat the shit out of you. Nobody would be saying you asking around the neighbourhood to get some bodies to prevent that was unreasonable.
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote: You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again?
Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then.
But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours.
Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. 2014 crimea was a seperate conflict. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there can be no negotiation. You brought up China and Taiwan, they still made deals even when historically they are in direct hostile relationship for past decades, with Taiwan regime being denied as anything legitimate. They still coexist and made deals even if ultimately china will invade taiwan in 10-1000 years. So you yourself should know you have a pretty weird chain of thought.
Not all war ends with complete destruction of the nation or regime. Even if there's a deal, there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already.
Whether a deal can be strike is just based on what's on the table. Longer the war drag on, the losing side will have to accept more losing position. This should be something even a 5 years old get.
Somehow this is a pro Russia stance and difficult for you to get.
If you do truly think this is the final existential war for Ukraine, and Russia will never let Ukraine be, then I guess you calling for the total destruction of Russia regime and revamp their education and media sector then? Obviously just defending ain't good enough, can't have guarantee they wouldn't invade again, am I right?
No, you are not right.
It’s called a security guarantee, something Ukraine are seeking, above most else.
Sure, in an ideal world Ukraine would rather Russia weren’t cunts. But they’re not seeking some anti-cuntishness reprogramming, merely ‘if Russia are cunts, will other people protect us?
That’s that, it’s not a negotiable. For obvious reasons.
Your patter is nonsense. China hasn’t invaded Taiwan. If it did, I wouldn’t be in favour of a ‘peace’ that involved Taiwan just doing whatever China wanted either. And I’m a neutral observer, I’m not Ukrainian or Taiwanese.
Also, the reason that PRC hasn't invaded Taiwan is due to credible security guarantees. If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote: If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
Isn't this actually easier to do WITH an active war going on somewhere else? Attention would be divided, support would be divided - any country that supports Ukraine would probabaly have not that much left to support Taiwan. l.e. less pressure on you if you're not the only invading country in the world at the moment, but one out of several.
On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote: If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
Isn't this actually easier to do WITH an active war going on somewhere else? Attention would be divided, support would be divided - any country that supports Ukraine would probabaly have not that much left to support Taiwan. l.e. less pressure on you if you're not the only invading country in the world at the moment, but one out of several.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you said?
You're not wrong, but you are misunderstanding what he said.
The war in Ukraine was/is a pretty good time for China to invade Taiwan, and many speculated that they would. However, again, because of US security guarantees, China never took the last step. If US hadn't given security guarantees to Taiwan, China would have invaded a decade ago or more.
On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote: If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
Isn't this actually easier to do WITH an active war going on somewhere else? Attention would be divided, support would be divided - any country that supports Ukraine would probabaly have not that much left to support Taiwan. l.e. less pressure on you if you're not the only invading country in the world at the moment, but one out of several.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you said?
I think he meant that it is easier to give guarantees to a country that is not currently in a war.
Aka it was 'easy' for the US to give Taiwan guarantees because no one was attacking Taiwan and now with the US defending them no one will.
Ukraine on the other hand is already in a war, a defensive pact wouldn't be a deterrent, we're past that and instead it would mean the signee would instantly be at war with Russia. Which no one wants
On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote: If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
Isn't this actually easier to do WITH an active war going on somewhere else? Attention would be divided, support would be divided - any country that supports Ukraine would probabaly have not that much left to support Taiwan. l.e. less pressure on you if you're not the only invading country in the world at the moment, but one out of several.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you said?
I think he meant that it is easier to give guarantees to a country that is not currently in a war.
Aka it was 'easy' for the US to give Taiwan guarantees because no one was attacking Taiwan and now with the US defending them no one will.
Ukraine on the other hand is already in a war, a defensive pact wouldn't be a deterrent, we're past that and instead it would mean the signee would instantly be at war with Russia. Which no one wants
EPT
