arming extremists and separatists is only cool when we do it





https://thecradle.co/articles-id/26794

Why is it wrong for Ukraine to want more than Russia to leave Ukraine anyways? Not getting genocided and invaded aren't really outlandish things to request.

We decide what is allowed or not with our allies.

I still cant tell what part of Donbas that Russia controlled. I even read the wiki. it seems you dont want to share that knowledge and want to just rant about other stuff. noted.

who said it was wrong?

ofc, you dont apply these concepts evenly when it comes to other conflicts.

Ukraine is fully justified to do anything against Russia, having being invaded unprovoked, until Russia goes away.

When Russia armed Ukrainian separatists, it had no justification to do so, Ukraine hadn't invaded Russia nor done anything like arming Russian separatists.

Not hard to understand that an action is legit in defense, not legit in offense.

Self defense justifies stuff that is otherwise unjustified, is a very basic principle which you erroneously apply to Palestine (which isn't a state so isn't an offended party) but refuse to apply to Ukraine (which is a state so if invaded, is justified to respond).

None, I already answered.

They just have to ****ing leave.

How hard is it for you to admit that yes, Russia should just ****ing leave, unconditionally?

Don't be shy, explain why you asked then. I currently only have the previous times you've brought this up to go off of, and we all know why you brought it up then.

I do apply my concepts to other conflicts. You are projecting again. You hypocrisy can been clearly explained.

Yes insurgents not Russia.

Russia has to leave back into their actual official border, the mustard color area is all Ukraine, always was Ukraine, and should be free of Russian militaries and weapons

BGP thinks they had more than none so maybe take that up with him I guess.

We are now discussing what something which was never said means.

If the negotiations agreed that Russia had to return everyplace to Ukraine except what they controlled in the Donbas and Crimea (they did not say this) then clearly Russia meant that they controlled this area of the Donbas. The insurgents never had popular support, right before these events unfolded only 25% of the people in this area wanted to join Russia, and Russia was instrumental in actually keeping these areas from collapsing because they never wanted to secede. The fact that Russia walked in there, rounded up all of the men and used them as slave soldiers for cannon fodder shows that these insurgents were only insurgents in the loosest sense; these areas were Russian and under Russian control. The separatists never existed in any meaningful numbers (Girkin can attest to this) and it was just a weak facade used by Russia, same as in Georgia.

Even if you disagree with this, what matters is Russia's interpretation of it. If Russia didn't think they controlled it, then why would it even be mentioned (not that it was)?

somebody said that "Russia just needs to leave".

heres their actual words

I was simply pointing out that Russia needs to do more than that to satisfy Ukraine and the West and its supporters.

unfortunately we are not allowed to make comparisons in this thread or any other. maybe we can speak in hypotheticals but I probably cant, that is reserved for yourself. regardless, in almost all conflicts what should happen from the perspective of one side, or even from a moral perspective, is not always what happens to achieve peace. the USA should leave a lot of places and stop arming a lot of people too.

So just to clarify, this thing which didn't happen suggests that Russia never did plan to leave all of Ukraine...

So want to try again what you're trying to prove? Because in the past I remember you saying it proves Ukraine are warmongering Nazis, Zelenskyy wants to hold power, etc.


The difference between leaving some areas so Russia can have a launching point for their next invasion and also trading this for Ukraine giving up its military is far different from Russia "just leaving" without insisting that Ukraine open itself up to a future invasion.




Hypotheticals are great. Comparisons are great. When they are on topic. Yours are consistently not.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the thread. All those countries voluntarily entering NATO after Russia invaded a new nearby region meant that the Russian "sphere of influence" (aka potential future invasion victims) was threatened.

Faced with this dismal outlook for future invasions, Russia obviously had no choice but to invade Ukraine before they entered NATO.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers poured over the Ukrainian border in what can only be called an outrageous display of pure unchecked NATO militarism. Not only that, but Ukraine chose to defend itself! Such a ludicrous act of aggression can simply not be excused. A desire to keep its independence also clearly shows us all that Ukraine is a puppet state.

Or something like that. It gets convoluted when people try to excuse Russia.

I said leave and stop arming the separatists. Leave all of Ukraine as defined by the official borders in 2021, as explained already many times. Nothing complicated.

Russia NEVER proposed to leave donbass as a fully Kiev-controlled area. They never proposed that. They maybe proposed (maybe, unclear, but there are enough elements to suggest that) to leave Ukraine except the areas that separatists claim are "independent republics" which then Russia formally (on their side) annexed in september 2022.

The latest insane take is that given 2 years into a completly unprovoked war of aggression, Ukraine arms some anti-Assad separatists in Syria (and so helps enemies of a russian ally), then Russia was justified starting in 2014 to arm ukrainian separatists against Kiev, even if Ukraine hadn't committed any act of aggression against Russia.

The absurdity just compounds.

Earlier the lies and propaganda got so distorted that amoral Zelenskyy (the Jewish frontman installed after Ukraine succumbed to a Nazi coup) was fighting off the Nazis inside Ukraine as well as fighting off Russia at the same time; yet he's still evil and amoral.

whooo boy. sounds like the Russian disinfo got to you.

Zelensky def doesnt want power. he just canceled elections so he could remain in charge. but that doesnt mean he wants power.

Blatant disinformation.

Martial law has been explained to you. The laws of Ukraine which require Ukrainian parliament, not Zelenskyy alone, to enact martial law has been explained to you.

If you continue to voice that disinformation you are either

1. too brainwashed to be reasoned with

2. blatantly spreading Russian disinformation


Either way you should be banned from this thread, it is a shame that mods allow this.

you are, as usual, twisting my words, and adding meaning and intent which isnt there.

the election was postponed indefinitely and Zelensky remains in power. if you want to argue that is a good thing then fine, I wont disagree bc I dont care. but it seems pretty weird to act like he doesnt want to remain in power considering you know, he still is in power and elections have been postponed indefinitely.

No, I'm not twisting your words. I am not adding meaning and intent which isn't there. Point out where I've done that.




He did not cancel elections; when martial law was enacted by parliament elections stopped. Yours is a dishonest interpretation.




The fact that he is in power does not mean that he wants to be in power. It's clearly very much the opposite to anyone paying any attention. Point to something suggesting otherwise.

Well, since you are worried about this, please expand on these four issues:

1. What is your plan for convincing the Ukrainian parliament to agree to hold presidential elections? They are the ones granting extensions, they are the ones declaring martial war. Currently every residing party, including Zelensky's opposition, do not want to hold presidential elections.
2. Please share your plan for stopping Russian bombing of civilian areas in unoccupied Ukraine while the election takes place.
3. Please share your plan for how the Ukrainians in Russian-occupied areas are supposed vote.
4. Please share your plan for how war-torn Ukraine will assemble the voting rolls and organize the vote among its 7 million refugees living in other countries.

I mean you defend Hamas being the legitimate representative of Palestinian will when the last elections happened 18 years ago there, but you c ant understand why having elections with a piece of your country occupied by foreign militaries and unaccessible for you is problematic.

If Ukraine votes now it can't count the votes in Donbass + some areas nearby.

Which would then allow you to claim whomever wins doesn't represent the will of Donbass and we are at the same place anyway lol