Brasilia, Aug 2 (EFE).- The war in Ukraine proves that the world needs a new system of global governance, Brazilian president Luiz InĆ”cio Lula da Silva said Wednesday. In his first press conference with foreign journalists since he took office on January 1, Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its āresponsibilityā because ā¦
Dude, your Nazi reference article title literally says āUkraineās Nazi problem is real, even if Putinās ādenazificationā claim isnātā. For starters he is very vague about the nazism part. You can find Nazis in any part of the world and while that is unfortunate that is not justification for one country to invade another. Now maybe if there were Nazis in the governing apparatus, then maybe. And I can see someone saying āwell, thatās Azov brigade. so Putin was rightā. Except thatās not entirely true. While the original founder of the volunteer battalion was a known to have ties to nazis in both Russia an Europe he was removed from command before the battalion was formally incorporated into the national guard. But then you could follow up that while the leader was removed the members of Azov are still nazis. "Paradoxicallyāat least for purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, which holds that Ukrainians have been oppressing ethnic Russiansāmost Azov members are in fact Russian speakers and disproportionally hail from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.. Why would Ukrainian ānazisā be Russian speakes, especially if theyāre supposedly oppressing Russians? Doesnāt really make sense. So the entire premise of going to denazify Ukraine is false.
As for joining NATO. Do you know who is the biggest motivator for countries joining NATO? Russia. Poland and the Baltics joined because of the historical precedent Russia has set. Poland famously was ripped apart by the secret MRP pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR. And the Baltic states publicly stated they want neutrality, which just lead to the USSR giving them an ultimatum: join voluntarily or we will invade. Thereās a reason baltic states consider their time in the USSR as a time when the country was occupied by foreign forces. Since the collapse of the USSR, despite what Putin says, Russia has chosen to not have good ties with itās neighbors. Literally the reason Finland joined NATO and Sweden is in the process of joining is because out of nowhere Russia decided to threaten those two countries (who so far have had no intention of joining NATO). And of course Ukraine. I canāt find it right now, because itās a very specific thing to search for, but there are polls done in Ukraine about joining NATO and around 2014 those polls went pretty quickly from not wanting to join NATO to wanting to join NATO. What happened between not wanting to join NATO and wanting to join NATO? Just the annexation of Crimea and the Russian backed war in Donbas. The one country keeping NATO relevant is Russia themselves. Prior to the war in Ukraine there was a growing sentiment if NATO is even necessary anymore, but the war in Ukraine justified the existence of NATO to many of its members.
And your nuke reference doesnāt work so I canāt really comment about it. If itās about the statements from the Ukrainian ambassador and Zeleneskii about maybe reconsidering the budapest memorandum in regard of giving up nuclear power if security guarantees are not met. That was a maybe and if Russia was actually worried about that, then perhaps they shouldāve acted in accordance to the Budapest memorandum and not annex Crimea? Once again we get back to Russia creating this situation in the place.
Those grievances are either false or indirectly created by the Russian interference. I donāt see how anyone could take those grievances seriously.
Except thatās not entirely up to NATO is it. Every single neighbor of Russia could choose not to join NATO. Ukraine didnāt want to join until Russia annex Crimea, Finland and Sweden didnāt want to join until Russia threatened them. This ānetā around Russia is because of Russia and not because NATO wants this. If we talk about NATO as an extension of American imperialism then American has bigger problems than Russia, primarily China. If thereās any part where the US would want to increase its military presence it would be on the eastern coast of Asia, not eastern Europe.
To regain part of their imperial hegemony that they lost to the EU during euromaidan? Ukraine was in the backpocket of Russia until the maidan revolution, do you really think Russia wouldnāt want that power back? This was their shot before Ukraine joins NATO, because Russia canāt touch them once theyāre in NATO (which is why they havenāt tried to take the Baltics back, as itās another region Iām sure theyād want back). I think itās obvious theyād do that, because they did go into Belarus (and I think also into Afghanistan) to quell the upcoming revolution there. Russia is the living example of āWar is just the extension of politicsā.
Cool, at least you now acknowledge that those claims have been known since before the SMO and therefore that guarantees over it would have helped prevent it happening even if Putin really wanted it by taking away wind from the sails of the government.
It doesnāt go into much detail other than āthey say theyāre not racist, some Jewish people even drink with them sometimes.ā Yeah, there is disagreement over the role of the Nazis, and the first source I provided was specifically one that shows that there are indeed Nazis not only in society but as part of the government, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions there. Azov is a far-right paramilitary that has been specifically targetting Russian-majority regions like Donetsk since 2014 when they tried to become an independent republic after the 2014 coup. Have something from the time talking about their war on a separatist group, which is not very nice in my opinion.
Besides not having anything of substance other than ātheyāre nice lads to me personally,ā your source also includes this line, which I think is a terrible look no matter who is saying it.
Not only is "speaking better " a really weird way to put it, but just because they know a language doesnāt mean the represent the people there, specially since both Donetsk and Luhansk voted to become independent before they went there. Either way, the fact that there is a paramilitary with explicit Nazi symbology occupying a separatist region and destroying monuments to those who killed the Nazis in the first place, while also celebrating known Nazi collaborators like Bandera should at least be cause for concern.
The USSR and the Russian Federation are entirely different things. In fact, the guy who made Putin who he is now is Yeltsin who is famous only for illegally dissolving the Union and selling out the entirety of the country. To skip over that and pretend they are a continuous government is misleading. You are probably referring to this article in which itās shown that NATO was seen as a threat in eastern Ukraine. After the Euromaidan coup, those eastern regions promptly either tried to get independence (Donetsk/Luhansk) and have been at war with Ukraine since, or in the case of Crimea have joined Russia and have very high polling opinions of their own referendum. And we must always remember that NATO has backed the 2014 coup, which is a common cause for the Crimean annexation that people often ignore. Guarantees such as removing Azov members from the government and military and banning Nazi symbology (instead of the currently banned communist ones) could have helped de-escalate the conflict.
No idea what happened there, Google failed me. Hereās a fixed one on yandex. Iām not sure on the official āwhyā of getting nukes in Ukraine, but it was something that was discussed at the time, and is a huge threat to the Russian national security, specially considering the previously ongoing Donbass war. Imagine if during the Cuban missile crisis Cuba was actively at war with Puerto Rico or something of the sort. Guarantees such as āUkraine will never have NATO nukesā would have been great de-escalation tactics.
Yes, it also depends on both the government of Russia and Ukraine, but most notably not the Ukrainian people. There has been no referendum on joining NATO since the promise in 2014. Russia couldāve chosen to de-escalate, but the NATO-backed Ukrainian government could also have tried to de-escalate themselves. Thatās what the āguaranteeā you were so flabbergasted about a while back couldāve been.
Yes, which is why NATO is not participating directly in this conflict, but using it as a proxy war to throw western ukranians at eastern ukranians with minimal cost to their own personnel. This war is basically a risky investment for them, if it succeeds, great, if it doesnāt they cut their losses and leave Ukraine in shambles, and it wonāt impact them at home much. Specially the USA who wonāt have to deal with the blowback from the Azov battalion like the EU will.
But either way it doesnāt matter much because NATO can act in two fronts at once. They are still acting in the South China sea while this war is ongoing, though it doesnāt fit as neatly into the news cycle. In the case of Ukraine, Ukraine itself along with the EU can focus there more, while in China they can better use the resources from Australia and Japan. Theyāre big enough to do multiple things at once.
Those grievances are the moral justification for the war, whether you believe that they are based in reality or not. Although I donāt have hard data on this at hand, I think itās very likely that the Russian foot soldiers at least believe these grievances on some level, and such a risky SMO would not happen without military support. By making guarantees such as ā1) Azov is disbanded, 2) Ukraine wonāt join NATO, 3) the war on Donbass will end, 4) no nukes for Ukraine,ā the Russian government would have a much harder time getting their people to willingly go to the front lines. Those are just some random ones I can think off the top of my head, but the smart ambassadors probably have some better compromises to be reached. However we both know that NATO has been wanting this war since 2013, since Russia is a critical ally of their enemies such as Syria, China, Cuba, Venezuela and now Niger and compromising would actually reduce the chances of their desired outcomes.
You might want to read this paper on the Maiden massacre before claiming it was a ārevolution.ā Long story short, protesters and police were shot at by snipers from far-right paramilitary groups, which was then covered up by the new government and the NATO-affiliated press, to make it seem like they were murdered by the (democratically elected) government. Then this government which was friendlier with Russia and tried to maintain neutrality got toppled, and US diplomats directed the appointment of the interim prime minister, which led to unrest and revolt in the eastern parts of Ukraine that did not support the coup, including armed insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, and then we got the Azov paramilitary being sent there to quell this revolt.
Following this rough timeline you can see how the war has very little to do with āUSSR imperial hegemonyā as if the USSR wasnāt always voluntary union from the very start. The official and moral casus belli of this war is still to maintain broader Russian national security and to support the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk (and Crimea), against the encroachment of the NATO-backed government allied with the Azov paramilitary that is known for destroying anti-fascist symbols, banning/imprisoning political opponents and imposing their unpopular government on the separatist eastern regions (PDF), not to mention banning elections.
To call that a ārevolutionā would mean that things changed for the better and the current government better represents the will of the people. If that were the case theyād be really popular in the east and wouldnāt need to send brownshirts to fight there, right? You frame Ukraine-Russia amicable relations as ābeing in Russiaās pocket,ā but how would you argue against the opposite claim the the previous democratically elected government was just following its democratic mandate of ensuring neutrality and amicable relations with both the EU and Russia, without having to swastika-tattooed soldiers to kill dissenters?
This all started with āwhat guarantees should be givenā and Iāve shown you some which you have not really refuted. All else is just bonus information to get you thinking a bit more.
I donāt think hereās anything for me to reply. I think itās pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value and without any question of whether itās actually true or not. With the guarantees you even go as far as to say it doesnāt even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means thereās 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 itās not even relevant to the discussion. Itās a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because youāre going to reply with another information dump.
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.
Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what theyāre 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 donāt exist (or as they actually did, escalating), it wouldnāt surprise anybody that theyād get more galvanised. Itās strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. Theyāre human too, yāknow.
And when questions are questioned I answer then. Itās not my fault you were so off the mark that I needed to contextualise the whole thing.
Take your time, no rush. You might learn a thing or two, and then I might learn a thing your two from your reply.
Itās 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 donāt like forum discussions why did you even come here to discuss something you donāt really care enough about?
This one is shorter, how about that?
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.
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.
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 isnāt actually related to NATO either, itās related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.
Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue. Last I checked NATO itself hasnāt done anything except reject the unrealistic proposal Russia presented. Itās entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop itās open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.
Thatās an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed āthe westā for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that theyāre 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.
Yes, it means that Iām aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you havenāt provided enough justifications. On the other hand Iām de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning. NATO couldāve 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 āthereās no such information.ā
So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you donāt need to āfully rejectā the outlets much as I havenāt āfully rejectedā 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 donāt trust 100% percent. You may notice I didnāt outright discard any of your (rare) sources.
You might want to elaborate on that. Since Iām 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. Itās all in the speech, if you read it.
Read above, but Iām also not the French ambassador so they could think of clever compromises too, so long as they actually acknowledged the Russian moral concerns. They didnāt even go that far. (though I could be wrong there, fetch me a source disproving this, will ya).
Those weapons wouldāt be developed locally, theyād come from the USA as has been happening in other EU countries. A simple official statement āno, we wonāt give them nukesā wouldāve been cool I think. Obviously they didnāt do it because, again, this war has been a long time coming and NATO wanted it. Ukraine is the one paying the price.
Read the sources, youāll 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 youāre not bothering to check the sources Iāll only provide the ones you ask for.
Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact itās 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.
Oh wow, Russians on reddit, a website that literally banned Genzedong for being critically supportive of the SMO. That certainly doesnāt 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 donāt really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with āAmericans think Russia badā NYT articles so Iām 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 my comment is very relevant to the discussion because apparently you seem to think that providing sources and discussing on an internet forum is ādisinformation,ā which I think is why you donāt provide any yourself. Iām sorry to tell you, but if you come here saying nonsense and people provide counterarguments with evidence backing them, youāre just wasting everybodyās time with your speculations and hearsay if you donāt respond on their level. You should probably read before you write.
Well? You were so ready to prove me wrong and Iām still waiting. Iāve given you days to find the sources for your claims, but I guess itās 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.
Nah, I actually wrote a thing out but lemmy 0.18.3 was buggy as hell and it didnāt post, and it ruined my mood for this. Since youāve shown yourself to be so lazy that you couldnāt just google the statistics of English speakers in Russia (hint, wikipedia has some easily digestible data), itās pretty clear youāre 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 wonāt 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:
What is the official name for that coup, Coup of Dignity?
Actually read those and point me where the actual de-escalation is in there. Literally dismiss Russiaās claims offhandedly while claiming āchanges in transparencyā or other political non-statements.
Your honour, I didnāt kill him, it was my brain who told the finger to pull the trigger.
Military defence alliance canāt control its members, logically.
lmao, find me an official Russian source denying their support for the independence of the eastern republics.
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 thatās a good exercise nevertheless.
Had to check, you donāt even read what your own sources say.
Honestly, go waste somebody elseās time with your
nonsense. If you really care that much that none of Russiaās demands go answered, go join the foreign legion or something, Iāve head they even help with student loans. Just dont pester some rando correcting your āwhat guaranteesā vagueposting.
Lol, you became a caricature of the same things you criticize others for and then some. Absolutely unhinged reply.
In that case all should be good considering the US and NATO did respond, NATO also publicly if I may add.
That applies to both Ukraine joining NATO and previous post-soviet countries joining NATO.
Unless you want to provide with a clear source where NATO calls it a revolution Iām going to claim they didnāt, because I couldnāt find where they said that.
I guess then it should be extremely easy to point where NATO calls it a revolution.
I think youāre seriously underestimating how strong Russian propaganda machine is. Iām sure youāre seen Russia claim that the west betrayed them with the NATO advancement. Itās something that maybe youāve 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 itās deliberate Russian propaganda
Anyway
Considering the rest of this statement hinges on their ability to speak English my question is, source on a lot of them speaking English?
Well youāre the one going around āguarantees thisā and āguarantees thatā 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 youāre referring to the speech so I guess that at least gives some clearer context on what you meant.
I did, this is false. Your sources stated that the US was backing the coup, not NATO.
Source on the spitballing?
The fuck does this even mean? Ukraine is not in the NATO so NATO shouldnāt 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 shouldnāt support Ukraine? The latter NATO literally cannot fulfill because that is a decision of individual countries.
How is that unrealistic? Itās 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? Iād understand if thereās a relatively clear prediction that Ukraine will lose, but thatās currently not the case.
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
Funny.
I actually donāt have an issue with that, I was just pointing out how there are Russians who would be happy to claim opposite. Iām aware that Russians support the war and in my opinion their refusal to oppose the war makes them also responsible for this war. This isnāt a case where they can say itās their government and they couldnāt do anything, they donāt want to do anything about it either.