this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
127 points (75.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
735 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
127
How do you make someone understand that being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is not a good thing? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 months ago by index@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
233 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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 -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 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 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 -5 points 3 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.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 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.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 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