Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack where hundreds of spam threads were created. In the case where, for example, I see a single spam thread and delete it, that is called a soft delete, and mods can still see them but forum members cannot. Those deletion can be undone.
When a massive attack hits with hundreds of threads, an admin uses a different procedure where the hundreds of spam threads are merged and then hard deleted, where the threads are gone, and no note is left behind. As I have mentioned with my own experience of just soft deleting a large number of posts, sometimes a post or thread gets checked or merged accidentally and is deleted by mistake. Dealing with hundreds of spam threads takes a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.
It appears that our Ukraine thread may have gotten caught up in that recent net of spam threads. If so, it is likely gone for good. I cant say this for sure, and am awaiting comments from admins on this issue. Yes, this sucks. And hopefully there was some other software glitch that caused the disappearance, and we may recover it in the future.
But in the meantime, I have created this new Ukraine-Russia War thread to enable the conversation to continue. Obviously continuity with earlier discussions will be lost. There is no way around that. So as best as possible, let's pick up the conversation with recent events and go from there.
If you have any questions about this, please post them in the mod thread, not here. Let's keep this thread going with posts about the war, not the disappearance of the old thread.
Thanks.
hes lying. its what he does.
You are lying, and you've done so a lot on this last page.
You said Putin offered to withdraw to 1991 borders except Crimea.
You claimed an article which doesn't mention this mentions this, and the only thing even close to on topic for that is a Ukrainian at the negotiations says they didn't believe anything Putin said so even if he had offered this the expert you're quoting says it would have been in bad faith.
You stated I don't believe Palestine or Hamas has a right to exist which is blatantly false.
You said I run this thread as a mod which is a blatant lie.
You said Ukraine is "shanghaing people off the street all day long" which is not just a lie but shameful.
You said the minority opinion is to end the conflict as soon as possible... shameful.
You said I personally banned you for 30 days which is also blatantly false.
You downplayed the Bucha massacre.
You then lied about downplaying it.
You are now calling me a liar despite not providing any evidence of such.
As a certain liar itt often says "liars lie"
t_d: It is depressing how little aid was given to Ukraine. At least the javelins that were finally given proved instrumental.
Even more depressing is that after decades of appeasement, Russia propaganda and its useful idiots are arguing that more appeasement was necessary, and suggest that going forward appeasement is the correct route.
Support to Ukraine must come with the understanding and message that when it comes peace deals and diplomacy, Ukraine will be decider and the one who says what is acceptable.
Not because you don't want peace or because "we want to destroy Russia" or similar nonsense that some suggest, but simply because any other message is very easy for the Russian regime to exploit in propaganda, to create chaos and to sow cracks in the already shaky co
yes that is what I wrote. Altho who does decide. because I doubt they will ever vote on it. In the end someone decides not the nation
if you fear a nuclear Armageddon it means you think Putin would use nuclear weapons offensively.
if you think that could happen, how can you think that appeasing someone who is willing to use nuclear weapons offensively can be a good strategy? how can you think that caving in to the imperial requests of someone with nuclear weapons can be a stable equilibrium long term?
the only way to avoid nuclear weapons being used against you is to CREDIB
read Nuclear War: A Scenario
Mistakes happen. I am more worried about misfires and escalation between two nuclear powers then a putin nuclear offensive
Ukraine as a functioning state is done, no matter what.
they lost millions of working age people who fled to the EU and elsewhere and most of them won't come back, + all the military age men who died or got permanently maimed and so on.
their demographics were horrible even pre war with huge emigration of working age people and low fertility.
and unlike rich countries, they can't fix 1.2 fertility (or lower) with immigration.
even if somehow we
then why do you want the war to continue? Why do you think its smart to fight for the donbas and luhansk back if you have no people to till the fields
Ukraine is not fighting for only Donbas and Luhansk back. They are fighting to secure their ability to defend themselves if Russia attacks again and avoid becoming a puppet state, which is an incredibly high probability if the ultimatum that Putin keeps putting forward is agreed to.
Disgusting
Most current countries are vassal/tributary state I wouldn't take it too personal. Canada certainly is. Its not so bad i think the majority of states in history have been a vassal/tributary state. It has its advantages sometimes the vassals get enough autonomy that they live better then the protectorate
then why do you want the war to continue? Why do you think its smart to fight for the donbas and luhansk back if you have no people to till the fields
Because it's not about "poor Ukraine" lol. It's about clearly, and credibly signaling to any authocrat present or future that we are willing to spend significant resources to make it costly, very costly, to annex territories of other countries.
Why? because that stabilizes the globe, and stability is good for international business, and what is good for international business is good for humanity.
As for who will work to extract ukraine resources in case we can fix the Putin situation, good question, that's what we should be planning in advance for and we aren't.
My take is, you know those millions of refugees asking to come in the EU? well if we have a resource-rich, highly depopulated area nearby where they can go and flourish (with our economic help) that's a win-win-win situation long term right?
Most current countries are vassal/tributary state I wouldn't take it too personal. Canada certainly is. Its not so bad i think the majority of states in history have been a vassal/tributary state. It has its advantages sometimes the vassals get enough autonomy that they live better then the protectorate
Most countries are satellites of soft empires, either of the biggest hegemonic players, or of regional players. Canada is certainly a well developed outpost of the american soft empire
various negotiators have come forward. here is one
You said that in April 2022, Russia offered to withdraw to the 1991 orders other than Crimea. You've posted this article as evidence of that, but just like BGP, I can't find anything in this article that says that (at least with a quick read). Can you either quote what's in this article that supports what you're saying, or stop posting in this thread as all you're doing is trolling by making things up?
Edit: and to be clear, if you can support what you're saying then I have no problem with it whatsoever. This seems like it should be a pretty simple matter of fact.
yes that is NOT 1991 borders roflmao, check after your blue, WHEN IT CONTROLLED PART OF THE DONBAS REGION
Because it's not about "poor Ukraine" lol. It's about clearly, and credibly signaling to any authocrat present or future that we are willing to spend significant resources to make it costly, very costly, to annex territories of other countries.
Why? because that stabilizes the globe, and stability is good for international business, and what is good for international business is good for humanity.
As for who will work to extract ukraine resou
so it was never about Ukraine or the people in Ukraine for you. interesting im not trying to flame just get in peoples mindsets
so it was never about Ukraine or the people in Ukraine for you. interesting im not trying to flame just get in peoples mindsets
Well it was and is about Ukraine, not only generic considerations, but it never was about the ukrainian people for sure, for me.
I mean the intensity by which we ought to answer that sovereign violation is higher given we (EU) border Ukraine.
If China invades Kazakhstan we need to answer somehow (for the generic, worldwide reasons stated) but it's reasonable to claim that we shouldn't go allin, unlike Ukraine
read Nuclear War: A Scenario
Mistakes happen. I am more worried about misfires and escalation between two nuclear powers then a putin nuclear offensive
I agree 100%
BGP says that this is nothing to worry about and the way to prevent nuclear war is to fight the war against Russia in Ukraine.
What do you think?
BGP is that an accurate assessment on my part?
lol
Double lol. Actually triple lol because you’re wrong and you’re insulting someone as well
Most current countries are vassal/tributary state I wouldn't take it too personal. Canada certainly is. Its not so bad i think the majority of states in history have been a vassal/tributary state. It has its advantages sometimes the vassals get enough autonomy that they live better then the protectorate
Yessir. Canada is a great example.
yes that is NOT 1991 borders roflmao, check after your blue, WHEN IT CONTROLLED PART OF THE DONBAS REGION
Good catch
yes that is NOT 1991 borders roflmao, check after your blue, WHEN IT CONTROLLED PART OF THE DONBAS REGION
So to recap: this article never claims they agreed to go back to 1991. It is not coming from Ukrainian negotiators present at the negotiations, or even from someone present at the negotiations, as claimed. It straight up says Lavrov said whatever compromise was being discussed wasn't on the table any longer.
A more recent article from the same publication, https://archive.is/32jo0#selection-1937.... claims this:
The talks had deliberately skirted the question of borders and territory. Evidently, the idea was for Putin and Zelensky to decide on those issues at the planned summit. It is easy to imagine that Putin would have insisted on holding all the territory that his forces had already occupied. The question is whether Zelensky could have been convinced to agree to this land grab.
I agree 100%
BGP says that this is nothing to worry about and the way to prevent nuclear war is to fight the war against Russia in Ukraine.
What do you think?
BGP is that an accurate assessment on my part?
No this is not accurate at all. If anything I think nuclear weapons are a bigger threat than most experts on Ukraine. I think what you're confused about is when I said that Russia would not use nukes if USA allowed Ukraine to strike into Russia, because USA had already done that and Russia had not used nukes. So this was objective fact, and even after I pointed it out you repeated that breaching that "red line" at all could lead to nukes... so I repeated that it had already been passed and nukes were not flying. I further think that allowing Ukraine to strike further into Russia carries minimal risk of nukes.
If you are talking about the discussion on the long term use of nukes, then yes, allowing Russia to continue invading more countries carries more risk of nukes overall than attempting to contain their invasion ambitions to the current conflict, even if it means increased risk of nuke at this exact moment.
You guys and your puppet states/vassal/tributary/outposts... words have meanings; this isn't their meaning.
BTW the skies are not "clear" and f16s are flying.
No this is not accurate at all. If anything I think nuclear weapons are a bigger threat than most experts on Ukraine. I think what you're confused about is when I said that Russia would not use nukes if USA allowed Ukraine to strike into Russia, because USA had already done that and Russia had not used nukes. So this was objective fact, and even after I pointed it out you repeated that breaching that "red line" at all could lead to nukes...
Allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia
Increases risk of nuclear war
Doesn’t change risk of nuclear war
Decreases risk of nuclear war
Can you clarify your position?
What’re in the skies that can shoot down F16s?are f16s flying in reach of any anti air weapons ?
So to recap: this article never claims they agreed to go back to 1991. It is not coming from Ukrainian negotiators present at the negotiations, or even from someone present at the negotiations, as claimed. It straight up says Lavrov said whatever compromise was being discussed wasn't on the table any longer.
A more recent article from the same publication, https://archive.is/32jo0#selection-1937.... claims this:
ok they agreed to go back to the Feb 2022 borders minus Crimea. happy now?
btw, how much of the Donbas did they control pre-invasion?
PW: Decreases risk of nuclear war.
Skies are very much dangerous, although I imagine most missions will be far from the front lines which is far safer. Probably the biggest threat to the F16s is Ukrainian AD at the moment.
Victor: you still have a lot of other lies to explain. I put them in a concise post, feel free to read it. And it does not seem that Russia agreed to that either. We haven't heard anyone actually present at the negotiations say that and it's contrary to everything we know about Putin, Russia, or just common sense.
BGP,
Senior US officials told ForeignAffairs and Fiona Hill and Angela Stent that Russia and Ukrainian negotiators agreed to withdraw to the pre-invasion border.
happy now?
now what the difference between the 1991 borders minus Crimea and the pre-invasion borders is a complete mystery and lets see if the people making the argument actually explain.
Spoiler
I wouldnt hold your breath on that one
