this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
707 points (98.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
6655 readers
2591 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
Dude... bravo, man, for making the effort, I guess. This is actually pretty impressive.
Absolutely correct.
All the blue is Ukraine's lost territory they got back with the West's help. There's also Kursk.
Probably true.
Did Western countries promise them security? That's the whole controversy about them joining NATO. For some reason, it is a globe-spanning crisis for Russia if NATO does offer them security, were they to be invaded, instead of just no-strings-attached weapons and a hearty pat on the back for good luck. Wonder why that's a big issue.
I feel like this phrasing is, maybe, an incredibly artful dodge, inserted into the middle of talking about the Budapest Memorandum to make it sound like any part whatsoever of the betrayal of that agreement came from any source other than Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe I'm reading too much in, though.
Probably true. They're working on it. Doesn't that kind of thing bother you? Wouldn't it be better to give them conventional assistance to the extent they actually need, and allow them to counterattack without all this nail-biting about how it would be ever so rude and we don't really care to that extent about dead Ukrainian soldiers and civilians? So they can win the fucking war and we can all go back to our lives?
I saved this one for last. I'm going to just sit and ponder at it, in silent contemplation.
Like I say, it's pretty impressive. You've combined true statements that are sort of in the neighborhood of what you're trying to prove, unrelated assertions, and absolute bald-faced earnest fabrications, into a pretty passable imitation of something that makes sense.
This is an excellent and thoughtful comment. Everything you said is true.
I have to applaud you. This is a work of art.
Yes 1991(?) Ukraine agreed to give Russia the nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for protection from the US, it's very well known.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Fixed it for you! You already provided the citation, so I don't need to. There was no NATO-style protection in the memorandum, otherwise Russia would have no reason to freak out about them joining NATO now, and getting security guarantees.
No one said NATO style. You said no one in the West pledged protection, the US did. The only thing arguable about it is how much protection was stated. The US backtracked and now say it simply means they will recognize Ukrainian borders and border incursions into Ukraine based on the meaning of three different words in 4 languages that all basically mean the same thing.
As you're clearly aware America which is western pledged security, what exactly that means is debatable but the fact it happened is not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
I can link it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The section about what Russia said about the memorandum when they invaded Crimea was pretty interesting too, and new to me.
You are so snarky it hurts, you managed to say almost nothing of value in all of these paragraphs. If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.
This is another pretty good one. You sound so confident when taking my detailed point-by-point response and categorizing it as "nothing of value" and airily dismissing it, that you can keep the conversation going without needing to make any kind of response. Someone who's not reading critically will simply see it as "a disagreement" between two people who are being pretty disagreeable with each other.
Then, you're recapturing a little psychological edge by telling me what to do. If I obey, and respond to your question, you've set a good precedent to be able to just do the same type of thing again: Announce that I have failed, and nothing I said had any value, and keep the conversation going, making some firmly insistent counterpoints and talking down to me. It's easy for someone who reads your response to read the signals and come to the conclusion that I am the one that's wrong. If I refuse, though, it makes me look like I don't have a good response.
Excerpting only the part of my message where I was kind of a dick, and responding more or less in kind, is a really effective technique. You're choosing what part of my message is the part that's going to be featured in the ensuing conversation. And, if I call back to all the stuff I said that you didn't respond to, I sort of sound like I'm whining about it and trying to control the conversation.
Like I say, pretty impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
Damn, this really opened my eyes to the kind of rhetoric you see a lot in online discussions. Nice one
Innuendo Studios is gold. They have a new one up now, post-coup, that's pretty haunting.
You're not wrong. It's one among a couple of reasons I'm trying not to do so much sarcasm and meanness on Lemmy. It's a hard habit to break.
On the other hand, nothing about what I said was personal. I was pointing out the huge separation between what's real, and what they were basing their argument on. My experience is that replying to that kind of post at face value, and just doing a detailed factual rebuttal of it like you're doing a class presentation, is a mug's game, because they'll just come back at you with a bunch of firm insistence that everything you said is wrong. Bullshit asymmetry principle and all. I did so that a bunch of times early on. I've spent, honestly, days upon days in other internet forums doing it. So, in this comment, I gave the citations, explained myself in detail about why I thought the argument was dishonestly constructed, and also I was kind of a dick about it, also refusing to take part when they tried to seize the conversation and discard everything I said and ask a bunch of new questions, generally lay a new groundwork for our interaction in which they get to push me around and control what's judged right and wrong and what we're talking about, and I'm a big jerk somehow if I don't go along with it.
Was the way I did it productive? Honestly, I don't know. They did snap out of it and actually start responding in detail to what I was saying, though, after I did it for a few messages, so maybe there was something of value to it. Like I say, I don't think you are wrong that sometimes the way I do it is excessively mean.
It seems to me that it wasn't so much that they "snapped out of it" as that they were trying to argue in good faith from the start, and got sidetracked because of your antics.
The alt-right playbook is good stuff for dealing with alt-right people or those who employ similar tactics, but if you resort to that right off the bat without justification, then you're the one who's out of line.
You should use a carrot and stick approach. If someone is sticking to the facts, you stick with the facts, if they start doing weird psychological bullshit, then you deploy countermeasures to force them back to the facts. I don't see any weird psychological bullshit in their original comment, they're just describing their views.
Fine. I will ignore the snarky elements of this message and simply ask you
If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.
Fine. I will ignore the blatant attempt to redirect the conversation ignoring everything I said, and simply ask you.
How are you trying to get away with saying that Ukraine can't recapture any territory with the West's help, when they did exactly that in 2022? Why are you ignoring Trump actively trying to sabotage Ukraine aid and risk the semi-stalemate turning into an outright loss, which is a pretty fuckin' salient difference and what he got impeached for? And also, presumably, what he is teeing up to do again by offering unacceptable peace terms to Ukraine right now? Whose fault is it, solely and completely, that the Budapest Memorandum didn't assure Ukraine's security in this instance?
This was two years ago, I will also make clear I'm not opposed to them taking back the territory, it just doesn't seem like it's actually gonna happen on any timeframe, one year from now, two years from now, ten years from now. You can feel free to link me sources if you disagree with me saying this.
He signed off on giving them weapons, he's not sabotoging them that hard. I don't really see any compelling evidence that this "semi-stalemate" would change any time soon even if Biden was the president for the next 20 years, again you can feel free to link sources if you disagree with me saying this.
Maybe if you expect things to change from this "semi-stalemate" I just don't see why it would change from this.
Who is saying these terms are unacceptable Zelensky? I have not seen him say this in those terms. I'm not saying Ukraine should take a deal they find unacceptable, they should do whatever is in their interest.
I put the onus on the west for not enforcing it, otherwise why even offer this assurance, if they are not gonna actually follow through and stop Crimea being taken, Russia obviously also broke the deal, but if the deal is if one side will stop the other side if the other side breaks the deal and the other side breaks the deal and the one side says sorry we're not gonna do what is required to stop Crimea being taken, the deal was just vapor to begin with.
So it doesn't count anymore, two years is way too long from today.
So it's certainly assured what will happen ten years from now, based on what's happening today.
Got it. Makes perfect sense, I'm following so far.
You want me to give you a citation for what's going to happen ten years from now? Actually, no. You're telling me what's going to happen ten years from now, and demanding a citation otherwise, if I disagree.
Zelensky has said he wouldn't give up land before. That was a little while ago, and things can change. I doubt he would want to say anything about the peace agreement before it's negotiated. He has offered to swap land, Kursk for the occupied Ukrainian territories.
Mostly, what I mean by saying that is that I think it's unacceptable, for reasons pretty similar to the posted meme. I think that it's likely that the offer on the table for Ukraine is "accept Russia's terms, or no more aid" and they'll have to make a nasty choice between those alternatives. How they feel or what they will do, I don't know. But I'm fairly well convinced that those are the options they'll be choosing between, and that Harris wouldn't have done that. Can you give me a citation otherwise?
Russia agrees not to invade, then invades, and you put the onus on the West? I already pointed out that the "one side will stop the other side" is nowhere in the memorandum. I don't know why you are persistently pretending it is, or ignoring me pointing out that it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content
How many years until it counts
I was clearly asking you for sources that predict change to happen, not to say what is going to happen in the future. You are just being obtuse.
I think Harris would keep on doing exactly what Biden was doing, I never implied she wouldn't, I just don't think what Biden was doing past for the past few years has amounted to much.
Yes, why even pressure Ukraine and Kazakhstan to disarm if they weren't going to do anything if Russia decided to reneg. There was no reason to pressure them to disarm then if it wasn't implied they would provide security if Russia renegged. It's the worst deal of all time if that was the case.
Well to be fair, you still ignored all their other arguments and questions. Why don't you respond to those?
By arguments and questions do you mean their meta commentary on what I was saying. Because there is nothing to respond to there. What should I respond to someone telling me I am using rhetorical techniques to obscure what I am actually saying. They should have responded directly to what I was saying.
I made sure to go through your arguments point by point, and the only part you responded to initially was my meta-commentary at the end, after I was done with all my arguments and questions directly responding to what you were saying.
snark
I was not implying it did not, but I don't see compelling evidence they will get more of it back any time soon militarily Crimea or Donbass.
Snark and they were promised security for giving up their nukes as you detail, that is not "the whole controversy about them joining NATO" multiple NATO members would almost definitely veto them joining even if most of the other countries were okay with it, and no country is debating kicking out the countries that would veto Ukraine, so it's a non starter now.
I was simply referring to the past, I'm not personally advocating that assistance should be halted. I think if the US is unwilling to do more than send weapons a peace deal should be priotized because I don't think this "semi-stale-mate" is going to change and I think people dying is a bad thing that should stop. Especially when it isn't accomplishing anything meaningful.
snark
There you go. If you wanted a better response, maybe stop being so fucking snarky and smarmy.
You are deluded into Trump offering anything, he is not, he is taking it all away so Russia can go have their way with Ukraine in about 5 years... AGAIN.
What does Trump think the Ukrainians were fighting for anyway if its all given away like that?
This is all purely the USA LOSING, there is no deal here, Trump is kneeling before Putin.
And an ending note: Ukraine should be applauded, they DID make headway, reconquered lost territories, conquered parts of Russia itself, and most of all it stood firm agains a country far larger with greater resources to throw at them but they pushed back the invader and made Russia pay dearly every chance they got because Russia has no business in Ukraine.
And a small bonus on top: it showed the world how weak the Russian army really is, most of its technology now proven to be inferior and only its centuries old strategy of throwing cannon fodder 'till the other side runs out of ammo is what keeps Russia in the fight.
But again, Trump is the huge loser in this conflict, Ukraine can stand proud but abandoned, and Putin laughs 'till he falls asleep.
If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.
You have said all of what you said without saying anything that Harris would have done diffrently. Harris would have given them NATO membership really? Why didn't Biden then? Harris would have given them NATO soliders? Why didn't Biden then?
What would have Harris actually have done?
The conversation ran off while I responded to the original comment, I have no desire to mingle in an ongoing discussion...
Besides that, I can not speak of things that can no longer happen, Harris is out, Biden is out. Nor do I know what Trump's successor will do.
Why something did not happen under Biden is not relevant, Biden did not promise to stop the war day 1, he did not proclaim himself the great deal maker and ender of wars. Ukraine should have been given NATO membership, OR at least NATO protection way back when they were forced to give up their nukes. I say it was a mistake that putin took advantage of.
But the right thing to do currently, and something I do think Harris and/or Biden would have done or worked towards (undermining internal US politics not taken in account) is put a permanent American security force inside Ukraine, including naval bases. There would be boots on the ground as a security measure and amends for broken promises. Also, there is NO reason Trump couldn't offer this in his "deal" other than putin saying no. Instead Trump plainly offers nothing and calls it a peace deal.
As I an others pointed out now, this is at least the 3rd time that Putin tries to conquer Ukraine and various promises from the West were made (as well as promises broken from Russia's side) in the past that Ukraine would know peace and safety ... I do think after the 3rd time Putin needs to learn that enough is enough.
Now, returning to my original remark, this is not a peace "deal" at all ... this is just not so covertly telling putin to come take it whenever he feels comfortable doing so, best while Trump personally is still in power so he can again sit back and do nothing about it.
I don't disagree with this. They should have either kept the nukes or gotten guarenteed protection like a NATO membership they were given a horrible deal by getting neither.
I don't think Harris would have done this at all. I don't think a single troop would have gone there in a non weapons training capacity if she were the president. I think she would have kept on sending weapons and that's about it, and, there's a decent chance a end of hostilties a peace deal whatever you want to call it would have happened under her in the next four years if Trump lost as I personally don't believe this conflict has 4 years left in it, regardless of who the president is.