As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have

  • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Even though op’s post history clearly points to the angle they’re trying to get across, I’ll answer for ya.

    You educate the Russians. They’re living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they’re educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they’ll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’ve read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:

        It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.

        Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.

        Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.

        • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It doesn’t matter who did what before

          this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014

          History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.

          It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade.

          Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That’s what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.

          Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.

          Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

          Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.

          Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.

          Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.

          Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.

          I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

            I’m not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?

            Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.

            This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.

            Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution.

            Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.

            I love how you just ignore that little detail there.

            I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It’s absolutely incredible if that’s the case.

            Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

              Here you go ^

              This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.

              here’s a detailed explanation with lots of mainstream sources for you https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup

              If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia’s border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don’t know what else to tell you.

              Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.

              Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.

              Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.

              Except I addressed your “point” which is sheer nonsense.

            • coolusername@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You’re being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia’s foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don’t bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.

              • AdNecrias@lemmy.pt
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn’t fall with the Soviet Union.

                That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.

                NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.

                Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don’t refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It’s a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.

                PS: I’m focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table. Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.

            • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              summed up: well i dont read shit so you’re gonna have to spoonfeed it to me so i can spit it out in your face without even tasting it

          • Fizz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            What you linked does not support the statement that NATO choose violence by not negotiating.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it’s actually Russia that won’t compromise.

              • Fizz@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Can you quote the part that you believe supports your statements? The bit I think you are referencing doesn’t support your statement at all.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I already did in this very thread. If you think the bit I referenced doesn’t support what I said it’s clear that no productive conversation is possible here.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think you know what the term radlib means. It’s kind of sad. But I do know that when one country advances into another country, and expands territory, that’s an aggressive fact. You can try to justify it however you want, I know you’re trying hard, but it’s just not convincing. Seizing the Crimea and then expanding more recently, those are the actions of a country that wants more power and more territory and more control. That’s not the kind of country that I respect.

        And if you want to point out that the US does shady stuff too, you’re absolutely right. But that doesn’t make Russia’s actions reasonable.

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think it’s more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.

        Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.

        It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.

        • Fizz@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.

          • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.

            This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don’t take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

          It’s also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it’s already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.

          • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Then why would Russia attack Ukraine? Especially since they had already agreed to let go of their nukes and not join NATO. Just let them be then.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don’t believe RAND, then here’s the head of NATO explaining it in black and white

              The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

              The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

              So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

              https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

              The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia’s border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.

              • vintageballs@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                Deutsch
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia’s conditions were / are. Of course NATO won’t let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.

                Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn’t even understand what sovereignty means.

        • Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers.

          I think we’re missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it’s a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there’s so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine’s economy. It’s only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they’ve been getting from Western public sectors.

          If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it’ll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies’ investments from hungry Ukrainians.

          • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s only because Russia has already privatized and sold off all of its national assets to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.

          • coolusername@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won’t do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It’s also possible Azov nazis kill him.