Russian invasion of Ukraine

[zorkuus]

I'm not really concerned with anything happening in American but once Ukraine hopefully starts taking back it's eastern territory where there are alot of ethnically Russian Ukrainians there is a significant risk to that population, be it revenge attacks by civilians or actual government restrictions

That is also ironically russian propaganda to a T. Are you in cahoots with them or just a "useful idiot"?

[Edge-]

That is also ironically russian propaganda to a T.

To a "Z?" Or is that uncouth at this point.

[Ripster42]

I mean, you still have to be told that he never said "Ukraine really needs to surrender", so you clearly don't have a really good grasp of what his posts said in the first place.

This again? We've already gone over this. He said it would be best for ukraine if they surrendered, and that they were going to lose anyway, so they might as well get it over with. Even the way you tried to rephrase his BS last time was the same thing with different words.

Here's a link to this nonsense from the last time.

[zorkuus]

To a "Z?" Or is that uncouth at this point.

I'm sure we'll see lots of Z's at their annual Nuremberg rally on the 9th.

[Specialka]

Is it though? I distinctly remember being told that the war would be over in 3 days and that Kyiv would fall in under a weekend's time. That Russian logistics were, while slow, untouchable by Ukraine and that Russia had complete and total air superiority.

Let's face reality here. The early advocates for Ukraine's surrender didn't leave the thread because We'Re BeInG mEaN tO tHeM, but because their grasp of the situation was misguided at best, and willfully contrarian to the truth of the situation at worst. And when they're taking Russian claims at face value, and denigrating any and all Ukrainian claims, I lean towards thinking the latter of the two.

Can you quote him saying Ukraine should surrender ?

[Canpinter]

That is also ironically russian propaganda to a T. Are you in cahoots with them or just a "useful idiot"?

Eat shit, my entire point is I want to avoid that abuse from happening so obviously I think it hasn't happened yet. I mean hell I just said I hope Ukraine takes back it's territory, but noooooooo you just decided because I disagree with you slight on if it's a good idea to degrade an entire ethnicity I'm in cahoots with a dictatorship?

[Belize]

Lets not pretend that whatever happened was not a surprise for pretty much most of analysts.

It does not take a genius to meme about post-factum events, hindsight 20/20 and all.

Not many before this war thought Ukraine actually would succeed to the extent it did, especially given events of 2014 where Russia practically took a chunk of land the size of European state in a matter of days if not hours with no resistance.

I am absolutely not troubled admitting that I expected Russia to do a lot better, because that was practically a reasonable estimate. This is also why Western aid took its sweet time to manifest - this situation was simply not expected even in the more optimistic projections.

Which is fine and I agree with you about hindsight, but even during the initial stages of the invasion we had a lot of people that have now vanished with utterly wrong and disingenuous analysis.

I'm not hammering them on being "wrong" per say (though it's a little fun). Hell, I was wrong on a couple things, like I didn't think that Russia was stupid enough to keep getting stuck in mud after a month of getting stuck in mud, I'm hammering them for the lopsided bias towards believing Russia and labeling any Ukrainian claims as "war propaganda". It's disingenuous behavior that only serves to helping actual Russian propaganda, whether it was intentional or not.

[Gaidax]

This again? We've already gone over this. He said it would be best for ukraine if they surrendered, and that they were going to lose anyway, so they might as well get it over with. Even the way you tried to rephrase his BS last time was the same thing with different words.

You misrepresent what is being said and you're completely shameless about it.

It's a given that Ukraine and Russia will have to eventually write up agreement and this by definition means mutual concessions does not suddenly mean "Ukraine surrenders". The reality is that Ukraine can't really take back neither Crimea nor Donbas militarily, it can hold the advance and does a good job of it overall, but that it.

So yes, agreement will happen whether it's armistice or something more substantial.

And yes, under no scenario aside from maybe revolution in Russia and complete turn around there will result in Crimea being given back to Ukraine. This does not mean "Ukraine surrenders", it just means that it will have to deal with that loss for a time being because some things are just out of reach at the moment or near future.

[zorkuus]

Eat shit, my entire point is I want to avoid that abuse from happening so obviously I think it hasn't happened yet. I mean hell I just said I hope Ukraine takes back it's territory, but noooooooo you just decided because I disagree with you slight on if it's a good idea to degrade an entire ethnicity I'm in cahoots with a dictatorship?

Regardless of what I think of you... how can you not see your post is eerily similar to russian propaganda? Have you been living under a rock to not have seen the kind of crap they put out?

[Belize]

Can you quote him saying Ukraine should surrender ?

Can you quote me where I claimed that he claimed that? Because until you do, that's a big fat strawman and you're confusing me with someone else.

[Endus]

You misrepresent what is being said and you're completely shameless about it.

It's a given that Ukraine and Russia will have to eventually write up agreement and this by definition means mutual concessions does not suddenly mean "Ukraine surrenders". The reality is that Ukraine can't really take back neither Crimea nor Donbas militarily, it can hold the advance and does a good job of it overall, but that it.

If Ukraine can't get Russia to agree to back out of Donbas (leaving aside Crimea for a moment, since it's more complicated and not immediately part of this phase of the conflict), and Russia will retain control in the aftermath of the "agreement", then what's happened there is that Ukraine has surrendered Donbas to Russia.

"Surrender" is a perfectly accurate term to use, in that case.

Not all surrenders are complete subjugations resulting in Nation A conquering Nation B forevermore.

If Russia retains anything permanently in the aftermath, it'll be because Ukraine was forced to surrender it.

And that's the problem with this particular back-and-forth. Folks like yourself pretend "surrender" is only valid for a 100% loss of territory, which is not true, and refuse to acknowledge that it's a perfectly valid description for partial losses. That losing Donbas to Russia permanently and agreeing to that is surrender. Definitively. The only non-surrender option in agreements would be if Russia backs right off out of Ukraine, full retreat out of all controlled territories. Anything else is a surrender of some fraction of Ukraine or another.

I haven't been part of this whole argument in any meaningful sense, so maybe an outsider's perspective will help.

[zorkuus]

Looking forward to the Jacobin piece that will never be published about Russian "sabre-rattling" after they literally just threatened to wipe the UK out with nukes.

Saber-rattling is a problem. Invasion and warcrimes are not.
Thankfully these types have been mostly silent in Finland lately.

[Gaidax]

I'm not hammering them on being "wrong" per say (though it's a little fun). Hell, I was wrong on a couple things, like I didn't think that Russia was stupid enough to keep getting stuck in mud after a month of getting stuck in mud, I'm hammering them for the lopsided bias towards believing Russia and labeling any Ukrainian claims as "war propaganda". It's disingenuous behavior that only serves to helping actual Russian propaganda, whether it was intentional or not.

I don't think there is anyone except Shalker who gives such a one sided pro-Russia outlook. Some people are too overzealous with their obsessive branding and enemy of the people hunt.

I think that branding Easo as pro-Russia poster is nothing short of laughable considering his country is pretty much next on the menu and his distaste for Russia and Putin was pretty clear. His only fault was that he got dragged down in a back and forth hell by dishonest/ignorant posters looking for a fight instead of just ignoring them outright the moment he spots their BS.

For example on my end I pretty much flick that ignore button at little to no warning and it makes things here so much better.

[Iphie]

Saber-rattling is a problem. Invasion and warcrimes are not.
Thankfully these types have been mostly silent in Finland lately.

Given the amount of animosity towards russians right now here in Finland I'm not surprised. It's politically very unpopular. I think only Ano Turtiainen (VKK) is rather rabidly pro-russian? Likewise with NATO membership, from what I hear around me quite a few people won't be voting for any politician that's against it. Which will likely hurt the Vasemistoliito.

[Gaidax]

Finland and Sweden for sure need to grab this opportunity by both hands and join NATO.

Moldova also needs to get off its neutrality schtick, realize they are next in line and move towards that. They are restrained by their own separatists, but it's a great opportunity to strike iron while it's hot.

[Iphie]

Finland and Sweden for sure need to grab this opportunity by both hands and join NATO.

Moldova also needs to get off its neutrality schtick, realize they are next in line and move towards that. They are restrained by their own separatists, but it's a great opportunity to strike iron while it's hot.

That is VERY likely to happen, the majority of MPs is in favour and according to the foreign minister the application is already written. Waiting for Sweden to let us know if they're in or not so we can apply with or without them. (as far as I know.)

[AntiFascistVoter]

Saber-rattling is a problem. Invasion and warcrimes are not.
Thankfully these types have been mostly silent in Finland lately.

Many people need to rethink their previous stances. True pacifism is extremely rare and works in rarer circumstances.

Too many bad actors were using this and "anti imperialism" as thin veneers to cover their own personal hangups.

• Being Anti West, so they wanted Ukraine lose as a proxy.
• Built their brand on being NATO-Skeptic. Yes yes, NATO does have flaws. But they made the mistake of building Up Russia to exaggerate those flaws.
• Terminal Contrarians.
• Fanbois of a podcaster of one of thee above.

Just terrible these people got confused as Russia shills... reeeel tragedy.


Super super excited for a shitload of people suddenly realize exactly how many of their faves have been outright bought and paid for by foreign state actors.

[zealo]

Finland and Sweden for sure need to grab this opportunity by both hands and join NATO.

Moldova also needs to get off its neutrality schtick, realize they are next in line and move towards that. They are restrained by their own separatists, but it's a great opportunity to strike iron while it's hot.

Very likely to happen in both countries already.

The social democrats here just have a need to work the optics of how the decision is made a bit because they decided to affirm their commitment to the exact opposite at a party conference as late as last year before all this started happening.

[Belize]

I don't think there is anyone except Shalker who gives such a one sided pro-Russia outlook. Some people are too overzealous with their obsessive branding and enemy of the people hunt.

I think that branding Easo as pro-Russia poster is nothing short of laughable considering his country is pretty much next on the menu and his distaste for Russia and Putin was pretty clear. His only fault was that he got dragged down in a back and forth hell by dishonest/ignorant posters looking for a fight instead of just ignoring them outright the moment he spots their BS.

For example on my end I pretty much flick that ignore button at little to no warning and it makes things here so much better.

You're somewhat misrepresenting what I'm saying. I never claimed they were on the same level as Shalcker. Well. A couple of them were actively cheering for Russia to invade and conquer Ukraine, but those were outliers. I'm not branding them as "Pro-Russian" I'm saying that their analysis of the situation was entirely off-kilter and unfair to Ukraine war efforts.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

EDIT: Also, I'm going to let the topic go after this, but I just want to bring back this gem, because it's really, really funny in hindsight -

People here have serious issues with underestimating Russian army.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1521199273915916288
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1521193080090730497

Karen would very much like to speak with whatever manager will notice him.

Seems to stem from this - https://twitter.com/Geopolitics_Emp/...14199906140163

Which is largely a bunch of anti-capitalists being big-mad that capitalist companies choose who they do business with and want to blame the feds, lol. These people honestly think that "socialism" is actually here and the government owns Paypal or some shit?