this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
200 points (89.7% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7737 readers
1 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, so Russia deciding to invade Ukraine is the fault of the Ukrainians? Cool. Very normal opinion.
You just insulted me with the sole thrust being that I'm not in your echo chamber.
I'm referencing real world events. Do you not believe Ukraine broke both Minsk I and II as a lead up to the war? Do you not have google?
e: And what's this weasel bullshit where you slipped in 'Ukrainians' like I'm going after the citizens and not the government? The Ukrainian people haven't had a legitimate government since 2014 when the one they actually elected themselves was deposed in a far right western backed coup.
What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.
Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory. The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.
With that said, Minsk I saw violations on both sides and fell apart for that reason. Minsk II was fundamentally similar to Minsk I and thus was going to struggle to escape the same fate. While the Russians claimed that Ukraine violated the terms of Minsk II, they also claimed that they were not a party to Minsk II and thus were not violating it with their own troop buildup. Of course, they also claim that Ukraine's supposed violations of Minsk II were justification for further Russian invasion, despite claiming to not be a party to the treaty. That's some duplicitous behavior and, again, if I were in Ukraine I would not want the Russian military in my country.
All that said, the point that Minsk I and II are not justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They sure as hell were not justification for the initial invasion of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk (not existing yet during those) and they're not justification of Russia's continued invasion deeper into Ukraine.
Lol well that's just a fucking lie. Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion. Do you have a selective memory or are you just fucking ignorant of the entire history of this conflict and should therefore shut the fuck up?
They didn't invade; they were already there. The legitimate government of Ukraine leased the naval base to them in Crimea and when the western backed coup government wanted to revoke the lease they simply stayed. Accuse them of squatting.
Well that's just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don't count if they came after a war?
Sorry you just lost my attention with that one
Do you understand that there's a difference between hosting weapons in your country and (let's say) invading another country and (for example) launching missile strikes at civilians? (And can i just say? That Wikipedia page just keeps going and going.)
Let's also not forget about Russia continuously threatening to nuke Ukraine without commensurate nuclear threat from the other side. (They just keep doing it!)
Really, if we go back to the start of this (the pre-Crimea days), Ukraine had two futures. In one, it grew closer to Russia and came under the Russian sphere of influence. In the other, it grew closer to the West likewise. It was leaning in the direction of the West, but when Russia attacked it sure as hell pushed hard in that direction. Now everyone in the region wants to get in on NATO and Russia is claiming that's "provocation". That's nonsense, and it's shameful and pretty slimy to carry water for their nonsense.
I dunno how to tell you this but the entirety of Crimea is not Russia's private naval base. No, not even if Vladimir Putin really wants it.
You mean the Revolution of Dignity??? That's what you're talking about here, right?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that whether or not they broke a cease fire has no bearing on whether past or future invasions of their country are justified. The Russian invasion was unjustified from the start. It doesn't magically become justified because Russia claims the other side broke a peace treaty. Russia could withdraw at any time. They could have even withdrawn to Crimea and probably been fine. Again, they claimed to not even be party to the treaty!
These are some pretty shameful arguments, overall.
Oh shit I didn't know they gave it a glorious sounding name. I guess fascists didn't have anything to do with it and then immediately making a Nazi war criminal a national hero with a holiday on the first day of every year. Fuck I didn't know you were going to post entire wikipedia articles with the name of the thing you googled to find it.
I guess when you overthrow the democratically elected leader of a country and then immediately start passing laws to marginalize his biggest voting bloc it's fine as long as you call the coup something patriotic.
Yeah. Your arguments (i.e. using multiple question marks so as to mug to the audience) are pretty fucking shameful.
Baby brain
Are you just stupid, or are you deliberately lying right here? Yanukovych was couped precisely because he WASN'T leaning towards the west. Did he flee to Poland when your fascists were threatening his life?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html
If you don't want your civilians to be hit by rocket fire then you shouldn't use them as human shields. And you shouldn't support a regime that deliberately puts its own citizens in harms way to score propaganda points.
I, uh, do not think you're going to get very far trying to claim the (if you prefer) 2014 Ukrainian revolution was some kind of Nazi plot. I don't really feel the need to engage further on this, I'll simply say: you are wrong.
Oh good, now we're doing this.
Yeah, because there was a significant chunk of Ukraine that wanted to integrate more with the West while Yanukovych was a lot more hesitant. Like I said, there were two paths they could go on.
This is, uh, a fucking disgraceful argument to make. Yeah you found one example of where the Ukrainian military got a little too close to civilians. Now how about the rest of them?
UN investigations have concluded the invading Russian forces have committed many types of attacks against civilians which constitute war crimes.
A few samples from the article:
And yes, they did find some Ukrainian war crimes were committed, but not on the same scale:
You said that breaking peace treaties isn't a valid justification for starting a war
This is after I already said you exhausted my patience with extremely stupid shit you said earlier
Why do you feel like your opinion is worth hearing if you spend zero time informing yourself to have one?