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 August 25 2025 22:53 Velr wrote: Why exactly did Russia have to attack Ukraine? It not being willing to give up, is not any sort of argument.
Also, such an agreement was in place, Russia violated it when invading the Krym and hasn't stopped since. If Ukraine, a sovereign country, decides it wants closer ties with the EU, thats not Russias business. Nato wasn't seriously on the table before Russia attacked.
I don't mind one bit paying a little more for Gas if it hurts Russia. And in a few years Europe will have enough alternative sources so Russia won't matter anymore and can have a jolly good time being a gas station for China/India.
Also, despite how horrible the US invasion of Iraq was, I don't recall the US stating their goal is to constantly occupy and take Iraq for itself.
The irony being that NATO very much was on the table, back in 2010. They voted to abandon the application to stay neutral. The reward for their efforts was an invasion.
On August 25 2025 22:53 Velr wrote: Why exactly did Russia have to attack Ukraine? It not being willing to give up, is not any sort of argument.
Also, such an agreement was in place, Russia violated it when invading the Krym and hasn't stopped since. If Ukraine, a sovereign country, decides it wants closer ties with the EU, thats not Russias business. Nato wasn't seriously on the table before Russia attacked.
I don't mind one bit paying a little more for Gas if it hurts Russia. And in a few years Europe will have enough alternative sources so Russia won't matter anymore and can have a jolly good time being a gas station for China/India.
Also, despite how horrible the US invasion of Iraq was, I don't recall the US stating their goal is to constantly occupy and take Iraq for itself.
The irony being that NATO very much was on the table, back in 2010. They voted to abandon the application to stay neutral. The reward for their efforts was an invasion.
The irony being that before 2014 they weren't even afraid of Russia. They had very close economic, cultural, historical, linguistic etc. ties to Russia and were happy to remain a close friend and partner of Russia. They believed that they could be friends with everyone and all prosper together.
Ukraine was never a threat to Russia, it only ever aspired to be a peer. There wasn't anti Russian sentiment in Ukraine.
I wonder why Europe isn't willing to appease a conquering nation that promises it just wants one more little bit of land. If they would just understand that they just want a little living space for their people and that they have legitimate fears that the smaller, categorically weaker, poorer, diplomatically isolated country will invade and conquer them instead.
Just where or when could they have gotten this attitude from?
Lastly, you haven't answered any of my questions. Please, do that when you get the time.
I already know the answers in your head to these questions, and you wont change your mind so I dont see the reason to go back and forth arguing when there is no chance of meeting of the minds.
What I will say is that in a war there is always at least 3 sides to the story.
1. Opponent A story 2. Opponent B story 3. Reality
What is important for opponent A to understand is that Opponent B wholeheartedly believes their story and in case of a war they will fight for their version of the truth. So it doesnt matter if they are wrong or not, what matters is that you can't change their opinion. And in knowing this, what is the best way forward to achieve the best outcome for yourself.
This isn't about stories. This is about factual statements that you've made. Do you have any evidence supporting them? I am open to changing my mind if presented with actual evidence, are you? (Case in point: I was of the opinion that Russia was likely behind the NS attack, but since more and more evidence is pointing towards Ukraine, I'm willing to accept that.) If you're here to just push Russian propaganda then you won't find a receptive audience for that.
So let me ask my questions again.
What makes you think the West is unaware of those demands?
Do you have an equally "nuanced" view on the Holocaust?
The Russian language was not banned. Do you have any evidence? Also ethnically Russian population was not being was not being systematically killed. Do you have any evidence of that?
What made Ukraine anti-Russian was Russia's brutal invasion and attempted genocide. Do you acknowledge that?
Also, to clear up another lie that you're pushing, here's an article by a former US ambassador to Russia outlining Russia's/Putin's position on NATO expansion over the years. For a long time, he wasn't opposed to that, including even Ukraine. It's only after Georgia and Ukraine toppled Kremlin puppets that Putin's views changed. If Putin feared NATO expansion so much, why did he help the US establish military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in 2000s?
Facts don't determine the winner or losers, or even the motivation to war harder.
We're not talking about stories. We're talking about factual statements.
And facts absolutely do determine the winners and losers. If Ukraine expands its long-range strike capabilities and keeps pounding Russia's oil & gas industry, the reality won't care about Kremlin's stories about how they're shooting down every drone/missile.
Facts don't determine the winner or losers, or even the motivation to war harder.
Exactly my point. If you actually re-read my posts you'll see that what I'm saying is that those claims are made by Putin's Russia. And many millions of people believe that as much as you believe your story. And there is no way to change the minds of believers. Or at least very very hard as it becomes their identity and their ego cannot accept anything else
As I said, we're not talking about stories. We're talking about factual statements.
Also what you're saying is blatantly false. As I pointed out, I changed my view of the NS attack - based on evidence. The Russian population changed its views on the war in a matter of weeks. Prior to the invasion it was unthinkable. A few weeks after the invasion is was suddenly inevitable.
Back when NS blew up I'm sure there would be been people 100% sure that Russians did it. And would've argued to no end that anyone saying it's not Russians is a Russian propaganda. They were wrong. Just like now you should be able to realise that some of your beliefs could be wrong.
As others have pointed out, it's interesting how the Kremlin lies you're peddling are some post-truth stories which should not be subject to scrutiny, while opposing views should absolutely be scrutinized. How convenient.
Are you going to just ignore my questions? I asked you if you have an equally "nuanced" view on the Holocaust because you effectively came here saying that "the Holocaust wasn't so black and white". That we should "try to see the world from Hitler's perspective", that "the Jews had it coming, they paid a price for trying to destroy the German nation". And then you complain that people are not being civil with you. There's a Russian rap song about what you're doing:
On August 25 2025 20:56 0x64 wrote: Understanding why we go hard at hypocrisy.
It all boils down to reciprocity. "what would happen if we turn the table".
If Serbia had the same laws as Russia, Zeo would currently be sitting in jail for many years for what he has written here. We all would be sitting in jail in Russia. Yet somehow, Zeo would be free in any country he so thoroughly hates.
@spets1 if you post something out of line, you will be warned or banned. If it hasn't been warned or banned, we have considered it fair conversation. You join in the discussion a bit late, and we have been through this discussion of understanding Russia from it's leaders eyes and it always end up in some useless arguments.
This video is from 2018 and tells you everything about what you need to know on that subject.
Anyone in currently living in Russia should even avoid reading this thread, no matter their opinion even supporting Putin is not enough to keep you safe from the "reading western propaganda".
The people who support authoritarianism always seem to imagine that they would be one of the decision makers. When it reality they wouldn't get put up with and are way better off where they have it now.
On August 25 2025 22:49 spets1 wrote: Or worse if Russia is losing then Putin will launch all his nukes and nuke everyone. He did say if there's no Russia, then there's no point of having a world. [
So I'm going to speak from the point of view of Putin's Russia, Russian wanting to protect their country. Brainwashed or not, under propaganda or not. And possibly the Russian elites around Putin.
You guys keep saying that Russia is the one who breaks it's word all the time and it's word means nothing.
Without going too far Let's go back to the break up of Soviet union. Ok so question to you is after the break of Soviet union who first broke their agreements? There was an agreement that NATO will not move an inch eastward. Was that agreement broken? It wasn't only broken it was abused the hell out of. Completely ignoring Russian protests. All protests ignored. Now I know what you will say and from a Russian perspective it doesn't matter what excuses you're going to make to expand NATO. The agreement was broken and abused. Weapons deployed, aimed at Russia shortly after these countries joined NATO. Noe at this point Russia is very weak, it just went thru hyperinflation a, economy is in shambles, people are struggling, government is run by mafia. Russia has no choice but to accept the expansion because US and NATO are the stronger empire and they dictate terms.
Ok I'll stop here because I'm sure there will be so many rebuttals posted here about sovereignty and other excuses that anyone can join NATO and Russia can't say them to stop. It doesn't matter to Russia. It is a military bloc, formed as an anti USSR, now anti Russia and it's deploying more and more weapons next to Russia, aimed at russia. This is not good for Russia therefore Russia protests against it. Full stop
spets, you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be entirely ignorant of basic facts regarding the conflict that Putin would be aware of. You can keep insisting that you’re stating Putin’s perspective but you’re just not. You don’t know enough.
The main issue that you'll run into is that at some point you're going to need to connect "The West is bad" and "Therefore invading Ukraine is justified", and you'll never be able to do it. We know that you won't be able to do it because if you had a good reason why invading Ukraine is justified, you wouldn't need to talk about what The West did 40+ years ago.
On August 26 2025 09:12 spets1 wrote: So I'm going to speak from the point of view of Putin's Russia, Russian wanting to protect their country. Brainwashed or not, under propaganda or not. And possibly the Russian elites around Putin.
You guys keep saying that Russia is the one who breaks it's word all the time and it's word means nothing.
Without going too far Let's go back to the break up of Soviet union. Ok so question to you is after the break of Soviet union who first broke their agreements? There was an agreement that NATO will not move an inch eastward. Was that agreement broken? It wasn't only broken it was abused the hell out of. Completely ignoring Russian protests. All protests ignored. Now I know what you will say and from a Russian perspective it doesn't matter what excuses you're going to make to expand NATO. The agreement was broken and abused. Weapons deployed, aimed at Russia shortly after these countries joined NATO. Noe at this point Russia is very weak, it just went thru hyperinflation a, economy is in shambles, people are struggling, government is run by mafia. Russia has no choice but to accept the expansion because US and NATO are the stronger empire and they dictate terms.
Ok I'll stop here because I'm sure there will be so many rebuttals posted here about sovereignty and other excuses that anyone can join NATO and Russia can't say them to stop. It doesn't matter to Russia. It is a military bloc, formed as an anti USSR, now anti Russia and it's deploying more and more weapons next to Russia, aimed at russia. This is not good for Russia therefore Russia protests against it. Full stop
My heart bleeds.
Russia could just have rolled with the process of normalising relations which was already happening, behaved itself and had some reasonable leverage over time to point out that a Cold War military alliance might be anachronistic, given it’s just a regular Eurasian nation.
Instead, they decided to basically do the exact opposite and complain about how unfair everything is.
I’m sure many Russians believe this, hell a worrying amount of people in the West think this, but its utter bollocks.
On August 25 2025 22:49 spets1 wrote: 1. So now that almost every country is in NATO they need to come up with some kind of agreement that will give some land to Russia from Ukraine. Because the Russians won't give up. Then keep some part of Ukraine neutral, ie no army , no NATO as a buffer zone between EU and Russia. This set up will allow the killing to stop. And also set up a safety zone between the west/NATO and Russia. And to keep the Putin mafia happy
2. Then for security guarantees EU needs to pump up their military. So that Russia won't invade anyone again.
3. Then EU needs to go back and buy Russian gas and oil because that's the cheapest and most efficient option. Otherwise EU will become uncompetitive in the world markets. Because energy is everything going forwards. No cheap energy means you will be dominated by others that have access to cheap energy. Ie US and China and even India maybe(Alternative energy is end goal but that's like 50 years away). This is what US elites and Chinese want. Weak Europe.
4. I believe it's not in the interest of eu to keep fighting against Russia because even if Putin's regime will fall, another or even worse one will come around from the mafia that runs Russia.
5. Or worse if Russia is losing then Putin will launch all his nukes and nuke everyone. He did say if there's no Russia, then there's no point of having a world.
Ad. 1: This has already been done in the past, more than once actually, and it didn't stop Russia from invading again. This time everyone is smarter and the argument of "... or Russia won't stop" is moot. Everyone wants Russia to stop except Russia, fine, they'll just keep pumping money into Ukraine or if it comes to the worst place their own boots on the ground until Russia can do nothing but stop.
Ad. 2: This is already happening, and if there's Ukraine after the war it'll also be armed to the teeth.
Ad. 3: EU doesn't need to go back to buying Russian oil any more. It moved away from that and there's no big need to go back to it. Chinese have their own internal problems and US has fucked itself up so Europe is actually not weak now.
Ad. 4: It is in EU's best interest to keep fighting Russia. Depending on how long this lasts the next regime that comes after Putin might not have anything to work with (and Russian Federation may just disband into tons of independent republics).
Ad. 5: Putin was threatening nukes for many years now. If he wants to launch them there's no way of stopping him so everyone just stopped caring.
I don't know how can anyone write stuff like that with a straight face. Everything it boils down to is basically "It's easy to stop Russia, just give it everything it wants." LOL
Russia started this war and Russia has to end it, EU doesn't really need to do anything but we're helping Ukraine because it's the right thing to do (just like we would be helping Russia if it got invaded).
Russia could just have rolled with the process of normalising relations which was already happening, behaved itself and had some reasonable leverage over time
I agree with that but that's why I said I'm talking from Putin's Russia point of view. The video 0x64 posted before (I watched all of it, it's great) explains that Russians have a different mentality and it always leads them to be aggressive. So they got smashed in 1990s and criminals raised to the top, mafia. And that mafia, Putin's Russia is fighting to not be dominated by the west. So yeah they are pretty bad at normalising relations
wouldn't need to talk about what The West did 40+ years ago.
I don't need to go back 40 years. The same requests were formally repeated in 2008 and 2021 and completely rejected by the west. And because this point of not trusting Russia has been repeated so much I wanted to address it
Well, there is something called sovereignty. I don't see why Russia should hold any powers over countries they've invaded in the past and lost. I also think that the east- west battle is only in Russia's head - no one in the west would want to overtake Russia, we don't even care. Any country warring to conquer land is the baddie - same would go for USA trying to take Greenland by force.
And I've been puzzled by why great leaders can't reflect on their own country forever. Biggest country in the world, vast resources you sell, yet the population is poor, economy is shit, you don't innovate or add to science, everything is corrupt, it's pathetic. If I were leading such a country I'd give up my way immediately, copy the constitution and laws from a succesful country and hope for the people to adopt the mentality and make progress.
Ps I think Kwark has good points generally but I think the condescending tone of his last post isn't needed.
From Putin's Russia point of view : US and the west has pumped a lot of money into Ukraine through NGOs that promoted russophobia and anti Russian mentality. This money and covert leadership from CIA caused Ukraine elected government to be overthrown in 2014 which started the recent events. There is proof where Americans including Nuland phone call is leaked where they talk about it including who will be the replacement after the coup. So there's proof of the coup, if you look thru Putin's Russia eyes.
From Putin's Russia point of view : US and the west has pumped a lot of money into Ukraine through NGOs that promoted russophobia and anti Russian mentality. This money and covert leadership from CIA caused Ukraine elected government to be overthrown in 2014 which started the recent events. There is proof where Americans including Nuland phone call is leaked where they talk about it including who will be the replacement after the coup. So there's proof of the coup, if you look thru Putin's Russia eyes.
Putin and Russia have invaded their neighbors every 5 years because they are an imperialist country its really not that confusing. Putin tried to tilt the scales by making Ukraine another puppet state and in 2013 (and onwards) they fought to maintain their independence. Im a "usa empire bad" guy, and theres zero compelling reasons to justify Russia's invasion in 2014, or 2022.
Understanding the narrative that they are telling you is not the same as believing what they say and treating it as a legitimate position to take. You are allowed to think for yourself and make your own mind up about the difference between what someone says and what they do.
On August 26 2025 11:31 EEk1TwEEk wrote: For those who say that the war is unprovoked, here's a 2-year old video of Joe Rogan interviewing Dave Smith - 2 americans, no russian propaganda. https://youtu.be/WVXzwnU1H6U?si=wUR_5bKz2R5iipG_
From Putin's Russia point of view : US and the west has pumped a lot of money into Ukraine through NGOs that promoted russophobia and anti Russian mentality. This money and covert leadership from CIA caused Ukraine elected government to be overthrown in 2014 which started the recent events. There is proof where Americans including Nuland phone call is leaked where they talk about it including who will be the replacement after the coup. So there's proof of the coup, if you look thru Putin's Russia eyes.
Putin and Russia have invaded their neighbors every 5 years because they are an imperialist country its really not that confusing. Putin tried to tilt the scales by making Ukraine another puppet state and in 2013 (and onwards) they fought to maintain their independence. Im a "usa empire bad" guy, and theres zero compelling reasons to justify Russia's invasion in 2014, or 2022.
Well so far (as an opposing view) we were not talking about that, i was trying to talk about if the war was unprovoked. But either way according to grok russia has invaded 1 country since 1990 (i mean 2 if you count ukraine). Not sure where you get 1 every 5 years from. And its for the same reason, when georgia announced they will be joining NATO. Its as if its important for putins russia that NATO doesnt deploy military rockets at its doorstep aiming at russia
From Putin's Russia point of view : US and the west has pumped a lot of money into Ukraine through NGOs that promoted russophobia and anti Russian mentality. This money and covert leadership from CIA caused Ukraine elected government to be overthrown in 2014 which started the recent events. There is proof where Americans including Nuland phone call is leaked where they talk about it including who will be the replacement after the coup. So there's proof of the coup, if you look thru Putin's Russia eyes.
Putin and Russia have invaded their neighbors every 5 years because they are an imperialist country its really not that confusing. Putin tried to tilt the scales by making Ukraine another puppet state and in 2013 (and onwards) they fought to maintain their independence. Im a "usa empire bad" guy, and theres zero compelling reasons to justify Russia's invasion in 2014, or 2022.
Well so far (as an opposing view) we were not talking about that, i was trying to talk about if the war was unprovoked. But either way according to grok russia has invaded 1 country since 1990 (i mean 2 if you count ukraine). Not sure where you get 1 every 5 years from
EPT
