• GoodEye8
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t think here’s anything for me to reply. I think it’s pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value and without any question of whether it’s actually true or not. With the guarantees you even go as far as to say it doesn’t even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means there’s nothing even to address because Russians will believe what they want to believe.

    And when Russian statements get questioned you drown out the criticism with an information dump that may or may not be related to the actual criticism. It would take me days to go through everything you wrote to explain why something is wrong or why it’s not even relevant to the discussion. It’s a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because you’re going to reply with another information dump.

    • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think it’s pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value

      No, but I acknowledge that Russia has demands, and has had those demands ever since before the war. Also most of the sources I provided were from US-based outlets so claiming that it comes straight from Russia is misleading.

      it doesn’t even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means there’s nothing even to address because Russians will believe what they want to believe.

      Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what they’re shown with their own critical view, much like you and me. By having NATO at the very least address those grievances instead of pretending they don’t exist (or as they actually did, escalating), it wouldn’t surprise anybody that they’d get more galvanised. It’s strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. They’re human too, y’know.

      And when Russian statements get questioned you drown out the criticism with an information dump that may or may not be related to the actual criticism.

      And when questions are questioned I answer then. It’s not my fault you were so off the mark that I needed to contextualise the whole thing.

      It would take me days to go through everything you wrote

      Take your time, no rush. You might learn a thing or two, and then I might learn a thing your two from your reply.

      It’s a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because you’re going to reply with another information dump.

      It’s a common disinformation tactic to provide a fuckton of sourced information that contextualises all that is being said and provides argumentation and conclusion. Come on now, if you don’t like forum discussions why did you even come here to discuss something you don’t really care enough about?

      This one is shorter, how about that?

      • GoodEye8
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, but I acknowledge that Russia has demands, and has had those demands ever since before the war. Also most of the sources I provided were from US-based outlets so claiming that it comes straight from Russia is misleading.

        Everyone has demands. I could demand right now that you change your opinion. Does that mean my demand should be taken seriously? No. I have no problem acknowledging Russia has demands. I have a problem taking those demands seriously because every single demand is baseless or self-inflicted.

        Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what they’re shown with their own critical view, much like you and me.

        Except their critical view is being twisted by state propaganda. Any Russian inside Russia has to fully reject all major information channels from within Russia to even have a chance for an objective critical view.

        By having NATO at the very least address those grievances

        Two questions. What grievances? The ones you mentioned or the ones Putin mentioned? Because you brought up slightly difference grievances than Putin. And the second question is how is NATO supposed to address them? For instance the one about Nazis in Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. The one about nukes isn’t actually related to NATO either, it’s related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.

        pretending they don’t exist (or as they actually did, escalating)

        Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue. Last I checked NATO itself hasn’t done anything except reject the unrealistic proposal Russia presented. It’s entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop it’s open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.

        It’s strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. They’re human too, y’know.

        That’s an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed “the west” for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that they’re human too but clearly the support is not as clear as you make it seem to be.

        The rest of the comment is not relevant to the discussion.

        • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Does that mean my demand should be taken seriously?

          Yes, it means that I’m aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven’t provided enough justifications. On the other hand I’m de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning. NATO could’ve done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world. And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that “there’s no such information.”

          Except their critical view is being twisted by state propaganda.

          So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don’t need to “fully reject” the outlets much as I haven’t “fully rejected” mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically. They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don’t trust 100% percent. You may notice I didn’t outright discard any of your (rare) sources.

          What grievances? The ones you mentioned or the ones Putin mentioned? Because you brought up slightly difference grievances than Putin.

          You might want to elaborate on that. Since I’m not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It’s all in the speech, if you read it.

          And the second question is how is NATO supposed to address them?

          Read above, but I’m also not the French ambassador so they could think of clever compromises too, so long as they actually acknowledged the Russian moral concerns. They didn’t even go that far. (though I could be wrong there, fetch me a source disproving this, will ya).

          The one about nukes isn’t actually related to NATO either, it’s related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.

          Those weapons would’t be developed locally, they’d come from the USA as has been happening in other EU countries. A simple official statement “no, we won’t give them nukes” would’ve been cool I think. Obviously they didn’t do it because, again, this war has been a long time coming and NATO wanted it. Ukraine is the one paying the price.

          Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue.

          Read the sources, you’ll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO, that they have been supplying weapons for the war on Donbass, and that right now they are providing material support for Ukraine, which is not (and probably will never be) a NATO country. There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions. Since you’re not bothering to check the sources I’ll only provide the ones you ask for.

          It’s entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop it’s open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.

          Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it’s possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition. It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks. Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions, and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.

          That’s an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed “the west” for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that they’re human too but clearly the support is not as clear as you make it seem to be.

          Oh wow, Russians on reddit, a website that literally banned Genzedong for being critically supportive of the SMO. That certainly doesn’t include any biases in your anecdotal experience that need to be accounted for. Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don’t really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with “Americans think Russia bad” NYT articles so I’m not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.

          The rest of the comment is not relevant to the discussion.

          The rest of my comment is very relevant to the discussion because apparently you seem to think that providing sources and discussing on an internet forum is “disinformation,” which I think is why you don’t provide any yourself. I’m sorry to tell you, but if you come here saying nonsense and people provide counterarguments with evidence backing them, you’re just wasting everybody’s time with your speculations and hearsay if you don’t respond on their level. You should probably read before you write.

          • GoodEye8
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well? You were so ready to prove me wrong and I’m still waiting. I’ve given you days to find the sources for your claims, but I guess it’s hard to find sources for made up shit. Maybe you should follow your own advice and read before you write, otherwise you just end up self-owning yourself.

            • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Nah, I actually wrote a thing out but lemmy 0.18.3 was buggy as hell and it didn’t post, and it ruined my mood for this. Since you’ve shown yourself to be so lazy that you couldn’t just google the statistics of English speakers in Russia (hint, wikipedia has some easily digestible data), it’s pretty clear you’re just wasting my time and moving the goalposts, misrepresenting your own sources and generally acting in bad faith, and the comment thread is so hidden that engaging with your bad faith won’t even help to reach even actually curious lurkers. No point in it for me really, prove yourself right all you want in an endless thread talking to yourself. Maybe this talking to this lad instead, you both think alike.

              As evidence of your nonsense:

              Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution I’m going to claim they didn’t, because I couldn’t find where they said that.

              What is the official name for that coup, Coup of Dignity?

              In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.

              Actually read those and point me where the actual de-escalation is in there. Literally dismiss Russia’s claims offhandedly while claiming “changes in transparency” or other political non-statements.

              I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.

              Your honour, I didn’t kill him, it was my brain who told the finger to pull the trigger.

              The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.

              Military defence alliance can’t control its members, logically.

              Russia obviously denies

              lmao, find me an official Russian source denying their support for the independence of the eastern republics.

              It’s unrealistic to expect that your borders be respected before there can be peace talks?

              Yes. Find me a single case in modern history where a peace talk only started (read: not a surrender) only after the winning party abandoned all their military gains. You can probably think of one or two, but that’s a good exercise nevertheless.

              Funny.

              Had to check, you don’t even read what your own sources say.

              Honestly, go waste somebody else’s time with your debate pervert nonsense. If you really care that much that none of Russia’s demands go answered, go join the foreign legion or something, I’ve head they even help with student loans. Just dont pester some rando correcting your “what guarantees” vagueposting.

              • GoodEye8
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Lol, you became a caricature of the same things you criticize others for and then some. Absolutely unhinged reply.

                  • GoodEye8
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    You tell others to “read before you write” but then yourself don’t do it. Like you said, it’s quick google to see that “a lot” of Russians don’t speak English. But instead of doing a quick google to see if you’re full of shit you just write it out anyway. No regards to you own “read before you write” mantra. In fact every place where I specifically asked for proof is a place where you’re either completely wrong or partially wrong.

                    Then there’s the whole “we’re here to have a discussion, why are you even here to discuss something if you don’t care about it?” as if you’re open to discussion. Except when I actually push back you turn around and go “No point in discussing, nobody else will see it” which is entirely contradictory to US having “discussion”.

                    Then there’s the deliberately vague part which is how the entire thread started. Your first comment literally “maybe this or maybe that and maybe something else would’ve happened”. Could it be any more vague? I even pressed you on specifically mentioning what you mean by guarantees and your response was somehow even more vague, telling me to read Putins speech and figure them out on my own. You did something similar the second time when I asked proof of a lot of Russians speaking English and you told me to go find the data myself. Any and all attempts for any specificity out of you is met with vagueness or deflection. Which makes it pretty ironic for you to call people questioning your vagueness as vagueposting.

                    And then you pull out every “debate” lord trick in the book. You say I’m wasting your time, I’m moving goalposts, I’m in bad faith. You call me names, like “debate pervert”. And then you pull a series of “evidence of nonsense” where you’re just raging.

                    I honestly had a good laugh over your entire comment because it epitomizes your hypocrisy.

          • GoodEye8
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes, it means that I’m aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven’t provided enough justifications. On the other hand I’m de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning.

            In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.

            They try to re-establish some kind of acceptance that Russia has the right to control what neighbours do, or not do. And that’s the kind of world we don’t want to return to, where big powers had a say, or a kind of right, to put limitations of what sovereign, independent nations can do.

            That applies to both Ukraine joining NATO and previous post-soviet countries joining NATO.

            NATO could’ve done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world.

            Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution I’m going to claim they didn’t, because I couldn’t find where they said that.

            And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that “there’s no such information.”

            I guess then it should be extremely easy to point where NATO calls it a revolution.

            So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don’t need to “fully reject” the outlets much as I haven’t “fully rejected” mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically.

            I think you’re seriously underestimating how strong Russian propaganda machine is. I’m sure you’re seen Russia claim that the west betrayed them with the NATO advancement. It’s something that maybe you’ve seen some poor quality western sources also claim, just one example to show that this claim has also spread to the west. That is not true at all. In fact it’s deliberate Russian propaganda

            Russia’s approach to NATO expansion in the first half of 1997 was characterized, on the one hand, by increasing government-sponsored rhetoric in the mass media about possible responses by Moscow to such a step. On the other hand, Yeltsin (who completely controlled all issues concerning Russia’s links with NATO) and Primakov understood clearly that Russia

            When he understood that NATO would expand with or without an agreement with Russia, he agreed to sign the basic agreement, thus demonstrating his continued sense of reality. As soon as Russia stated its readiness to sign the agreement with NATO, several Russian authors who are often used to express the views of the Russian Foreign Ministry, proclaimed that Russia had extracted enormous concessions: There would be no second round of enlargement; NATO would review its strategic concept and would be transformed into an organization more political than military. It was especially stressed that Russia would reject the basic agreement if the issue of admitting the Baltic states into the alliance were ever to be raised.7 There was no doubt that in comments about the NATO agreement, representatives of the Russian government, as well as people in the mass media, sought to portray the agreement as a win for Russia and to ascribe to NATO promises which the alliance had never made (this was especially true of a remark by Yeltsin press secretary Sergei Yastrzhembsky that Russia had made certain that new NATO members would be second-rate participants in the alliance).8

            Anyway

            They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don’t trust 100% percent.

            Considering the rest of this statement hinges on their ability to speak English my question is, source on a lot of them speaking English?

            You might want to elaborate on that. Since I’m not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It’s all in the speech, if you read it.

            Well you’re the one going around “guarantees this” and “guarantees that” but at no point do you explicitly state what you mean by guarantees. You listed a few but those were presented more like your personal opinion on what they might be, rather than what you claim they are. But I guess you’re referring to the speech so I guess that at least gives some clearer context on what you meant.

            Read the sources, you’ll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO,

            I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.

            There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions.

            Source on the spitballing?

            Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it’s possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition.

            The fuck does this even mean? Ukraine is not in the NATO so NATO shouldn’t allow Ukraine in at all and also move all of its forces out of the Baltic states and Poland? Or did you mean only the last part of those unreasonable claims, that NATO countries shouldn’t support Ukraine? The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.

            It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks.

            How is that unrealistic? It’s unrealistic to expect that your borders be respected before there can be peace talks? Especially if the entire war is either at a stalemate or slightly in your favor? I’d understand if there’s a relatively clear prediction that Ukraine will lose, but that’s currently not the case.

            Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions

            You mean with the Russian backed coup in Donetsk and Luhansk? Russia obviously denies that but both region are russian-backed. That war is just as much on Russia as it is on Ukraine. A

            and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.

            Funny.

            Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don’t really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with “Americans think Russia bad” NYT articles so I’m not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.

            I actually don’t have an issue with that, I was just pointing out how there are Russians who would be happy to claim opposite. I’m aware that Russians support the war and in my opinion their refusal to oppose the war makes them also responsible for this war. This isn’t a case where they can say it’s their government and they couldn’t do anything, they don’t want to do anything about it either.