KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday announced a military operation in Ukraine, claiming it’s intended to protect civilians. In a televised address, Putin said the action comes in response to threats coming from Ukraine.
Personally, I didn’t see what angle there would be for Russia to actually invade Ukraine. Recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk was justified, but going further than that takes away any legitimacy from Russian position.
I know you are being sarcastic, but there were a handful of people across Lemmy insisting there was no invasion coming.
They said that the military buildup didn’t happen, that it was just the latest in a history of false alarms, that it was just the west warmongering, etc. and basically spent the last week calling people crazy for suspecting that any attack was on the table.
Oops, just wrong about an impending war where the evidence was screamingly obvious. No biggie.
Russia could gained control of the remaining ethnically russian regions, of important mining areas and pipeline routes. And stopped. It was the obvious winning strategy.
Then it could wait a couple of years and repeat, steadily increasing its power in the region.
Like fools, they they give in to international pressure/expectations and rolled on into west ukraine. There’s no strategic sense in it.
It’s unfortunate that literally everyone you were arguing with apparently was able to see the trajectory of events more clearly than you.
Hopefully some self-reflection will be in order and you can see if the same errors of judgment are compromising your ability to evaluate subsequent events in Ukraine and make excuses, and if your counterparts making the same arguments as you are similarly blind.
Nina Khrushcheva, a professor at the New School, spoke to NPR this morning. Like you, she was dismissing talk of an impending invasion as Western-driven hysteria. She confessed on the air that this was a major embarrassment for her, which I found to be a nice moment of accountability. Surely you can follow her example.
I base my assessment on the available facts. At the time I did not see the benefit for Russia to invade Ukraine since they were getting what they wanted by being measured. Clearly events worked out differently, and we’re in a new situation now. I’m not sure what self-reflection you’re suggesting I should be doing here. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t evaluate events based on the available facts?
Totally obtuse answer. I’m saying that your assessment of what counted as “the facts” and your interpretation of them was completely wrong, and possibly driven by biases that you may want to examine further, and I gave you the example of another person who, in a similar case took ownership of their mistake.
If you think a JV debate team game where you try and twist my words into “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at ThE fAcTs?!”, that’s just a signal in favor of the conclusion that you have been and are continuing to be completely disingenuous. These are just not adult answers.
Please be specific what you’re claiming to be lies. What I said was that it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. I also noted that Ukraine was carrying out attacked against ethnic Russian population in Ukraine, and even provided sources including actual research to support that. What specifically are you claiming I lied about?
You shared a links with me earlier about how water and electricity supplies were being disrupted. that’s probably true, but its likely a direct result of the russian invasion, and the premise that invading more will solve the problem is an obvious lie.
How can it possibly be a result of the Russian invasion when these things have been happening for the past 8 years. Why do you need the feel to lie openly?
We’ll get to that, if you want an hour long tedious point by point debate where you constantly argue definitions and split differences.
But first, what I’m telling you now is that “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a totally obtuse and disingenuous paraphrase and a signal that nobody on Lemmy should bother trying to reason with you, because you aren’t willing to try.
Somehow the rest of the world, including everyone you were arguing with, were able to see it from the same set of “tHe FaCtS” and see the obvious and you weren’t, and you don’t want to do any self-reflection unless lead by the nose through god knows how many tedious paragraphs of details, fighting every step of the way. More responsible people, such as Nina Kruscheva are able to do that on their own.
What I’m telling you is that Russia was getting what they wanted without the need to invade. The facts are that western powers were engaged in active diplomacy with Russia, and that Ukrainian economy was crashing. Simply recognizing Donbas republics and waiting would’ve worked in Russia’s favor in the long term. Please explain to me what specifically you claim to be at odds with the facts in that assessment.
Actually invading Ukraine will clearly destroy any chance for diplomacy between Russia and Europe and help galvanize NATO. I personally don’t see how this is to Russia’s benefit, but again perhaps you can explain to me why I was deluded to think that.
Despite all your bloviating here, you haven’t actually said a single thing of substance. You just keep repeating how “ThE ReSt Of tHe WoRLd” came to a different conclusion, without explaining the basis for it.
Replying to me by saying “oh so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation over ordinary terminology.
It’s a signal that you are not even trying to engage in good faith. If people on Lemmy saw nothing other than this chain of comments it would be sufficient reason to never engage with you.
I replied to you saying that based on the available facts it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. Obviously I’m not omniscient, and I was clearly wrong in my assessment. However, I once again ask you to explain why you’re insisting that my assessment was wrong based on what was known at the time.
Seems to me that you’re the one being extremely disingenuous here given that you refuse to address the actual points I made.
Here’s a direct quote from page 54 of your final piece of evidence:
The revelations from the trials and investigations which confirm that the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police was a false flag operation which involved Maidan snipers and elements of the Maidan leadership have major implications for understanding not only this crucial case of political violence in Ukraine.
Quick question, why didn’t you copy the entire quote?
The revelations from the trials and investigations which confirm that the Maidan
massacre of the protesters and the police was a false flag operation which involved Maidan
snipers and elements of the Maidan leadership have major implications for understanding not only this crucial case of political violence in Ukraine. They have major implications for
understanding the “Euromaidan” and the origins of the violent conflict in Ukraine and the
conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and between Russia and the West. The revelations from the Maidan massacre trials and investigations show that the narratives promoted by the Ukrainian and Western governments and with some notable exceptions the media that the Maidan protesters were massacred by government snipers and/or the Berkut police are false.
Personally, I didn’t see what angle there would be for Russia to actually invade Ukraine. Recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk was justified, but going further than that takes away any legitimacy from Russian position.
It seems like recognizing the Donbass region as separate republics was always going to be a stepping stone to attacking the rest of Ukraine.
Totally didn’t see that coming
I know you are being sarcastic, but there were a handful of people across Lemmy insisting there was no invasion coming.
They said that the military buildup didn’t happen, that it was just the latest in a history of false alarms, that it was just the west warmongering, etc. and basically spent the last week calling people crazy for suspecting that any attack was on the table.
Oops, just wrong about an impending war where the evidence was screamingly obvious. No biggie.
they were saying this shit for 8 fucking years of course we thought it would be prudent to ignore it you idiot
I’m sure half of lemmygrad thinks NATO blew up Kyiv
I’m still shocked. What happened was stupid.
Russia could gained control of the remaining ethnically russian regions, of important mining areas and pipeline routes. And stopped. It was the obvious winning strategy.
Then it could wait a couple of years and repeat, steadily increasing its power in the region.
Like fools, they they give in to international pressure/expectations and rolled on into west ukraine. There’s no strategic sense in it.
It’s unfortunate that literally everyone you were arguing with apparently was able to see the trajectory of events more clearly than you.
Hopefully some self-reflection will be in order and you can see if the same errors of judgment are compromising your ability to evaluate subsequent events in Ukraine and make excuses, and if your counterparts making the same arguments as you are similarly blind.
Nina Khrushcheva, a professor at the New School, spoke to NPR this morning. Like you, she was dismissing talk of an impending invasion as Western-driven hysteria. She confessed on the air that this was a major embarrassment for her, which I found to be a nice moment of accountability. Surely you can follow her example.
I base my assessment on the available facts. At the time I did not see the benefit for Russia to invade Ukraine since they were getting what they wanted by being measured. Clearly events worked out differently, and we’re in a new situation now. I’m not sure what self-reflection you’re suggesting I should be doing here. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t evaluate events based on the available facts?
Totally obtuse answer. I’m saying that your assessment of what counted as “the facts” and your interpretation of them was completely wrong, and possibly driven by biases that you may want to examine further, and I gave you the example of another person who, in a similar case took ownership of their mistake.
If you think a JV debate team game where you try and twist my words into “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at ThE fAcTs?!”, that’s just a signal in favor of the conclusion that you have been and are continuing to be completely disingenuous. These are just not adult answers.
What specifically are you claiming was completely wrong in my assessment?
all of the bullshit “justifications” you’ve been fed are lies
Please be specific what you’re claiming to be lies. What I said was that it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. I also noted that Ukraine was carrying out attacked against ethnic Russian population in Ukraine, and even provided sources including actual research to support that. What specifically are you claiming I lied about?
Unless you’re part of the Russian state propaganda network, that’s not what I said… or it was a really great self-report.
I said you’ve been lied to.
What specifically are you claiming I’ve been lied to about. I provided my rationale above, please address what I actually said.
You shared a links with me earlier about how water and electricity supplies were being disrupted. that’s probably true, but its likely a direct result of the russian invasion, and the premise that invading more will solve the problem is an obvious lie.
How can it possibly be a result of the Russian invasion when these things have been happening for the past 8 years. Why do you need the feel to lie openly?
LIE
I literally provided references for this, what are you claiming is the lie here?
We’ll get to that, if you want an hour long tedious point by point debate where you constantly argue definitions and split differences.
But first, what I’m telling you now is that “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a totally obtuse and disingenuous paraphrase and a signal that nobody on Lemmy should bother trying to reason with you, because you aren’t willing to try.
Somehow the rest of the world, including everyone you were arguing with, were able to see it from the same set of “tHe FaCtS” and see the obvious and you weren’t, and you don’t want to do any self-reflection unless lead by the nose through god knows how many tedious paragraphs of details, fighting every step of the way. More responsible people, such as Nina Kruscheva are able to do that on their own.
What I’m telling you is that Russia was getting what they wanted without the need to invade. The facts are that western powers were engaged in active diplomacy with Russia, and that Ukrainian economy was crashing. Simply recognizing Donbas republics and waiting would’ve worked in Russia’s favor in the long term. Please explain to me what specifically you claim to be at odds with the facts in that assessment.
Actually invading Ukraine will clearly destroy any chance for diplomacy between Russia and Europe and help galvanize NATO. I personally don’t see how this is to Russia’s benefit, but again perhaps you can explain to me why I was deluded to think that.
Despite all your bloviating here, you haven’t actually said a single thing of substance. You just keep repeating how “ThE ReSt Of tHe WoRLd” came to a different conclusion, without explaining the basis for it.
Replying to me by saying “oh so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation over ordinary terminology.
It’s a signal that you are not even trying to engage in good faith. If people on Lemmy saw nothing other than this chain of comments it would be sufficient reason to never engage with you.
Stop the name calling and answer the question
I replied to you saying that based on the available facts it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. Obviously I’m not omniscient, and I was clearly wrong in my assessment. However, I once again ask you to explain why you’re insisting that my assessment was wrong based on what was known at the time.
Seems to me that you’re the one being extremely disingenuous here given that you refuse to address the actual points I made.
There was never any legitimacy
Given what NATO and Ukraine have been up to, there absolutely was
https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1496876089838342156
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/unicef-nearly-2-dozen-attacks-on-water-supply-systems-in-donbas-recorded-since-years-start.html
https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-02-22/no-power-no-water-civilians-in-donbas-region-feel-effects-of-escalating-ukraine-russia-crisis.html
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356691143_The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation
Here’s a direct quote from page 54 of your final piece of evidence:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356691143_The_Maidan_Massacre_in_Ukraine_Revelations_from_Trials_and_Investigation
Quick question, why didn’t you copy the entire quote?
I miss-read that =\
You just combed the document for a quote that supported your biases without actually reading it.
No I read some of a 74 page document and my brain stopped working around page 54 =/
Yeah ok, you just oopsie daisy cut off the paragraph in a middle to make it look like it says the opposite of what it’s actually saying. Gotcha.
how about you find the sentence that says Ukraine committed genocide…
Where did I make that claim?