Russian invasion of Ukraine

[PhaelixWW]

Bruh... 03-29, 03-24, 03-19

Not past the early days, huh?

I mean... Ukraine was slowly losing ground until Russia abandoned the fight around Kyiv and northern Ukraine... on 3/30.

And don't take that last quote out of context. He meant that they would "lose" even if they won the war. And this sentiment went for Russia, as well; he viewed this war as one with no real victory for either side:

The only questions there are are these two - what Ukraine will have to pay and what Russia will have to pay? There is no true victory.

[jonnysensible]

its boring to talk about people who arent here who can tell you what they think if you just ask them lol

i thought easo was in the bad camp of thought where he thought a quick russian win would be a path to peace with heavy concessions from ukraine but thats better than a war of attrition and senseless death but im pretty sure this was pre bucha. I'll attack this strawman ive just made with *SPANISH CIVIL WAR NOISES*

[PhaelixWW]

I think Crimea's a little different and more complicated, because Russia already controlled it.

But Crimea and LPR/DPR are within the realm of possible "concessions". And some people here are pretending that "making concessions" is the same thing as surrendering.

So it seems clear from your argument that you agree that "making concessions" does not mean "surrendering".

Regardless, if someone states it as baldly as "You think Ukraine should surrender to Russia!" there are obvious implications being made above the idea of leaving Crimea, DPR, and LPR in the hands of Russia, all of which were de facto positions before the invasion.

- - - Updated - - -

"Fog of war" "western propaganda" "memes and stereotypes" "not independently confirmed, but probably more likely Ukrainian loss" "Ukraine has lost already" "this isn't even Russias final form!!1" simps are really coming out of the woodwork lately it seems.

Nah, there aren't any of those types here lately.

Check back in a couple days when Shalcker is back from vacation, though.

[DarkTZeratul]

But Crimea and LPR/DPR are within the realm of possible "concessions". And some people here are pretending that "making concessions" is the same thing as surrendering.

So it seems clear from your argument that you agree that "making concessions" does not mean "surrendering".

While "not getting Crimea back" might be a concession, it's not a surrender because they already lost it eight years ago, well before the current conflict. They can't surrender something they don't have anymore.

[Belize]

While "not getting Crimea back" might be a concession, it's not a surrender because they already lost it eight years ago, well before the current conflict. They can't surrender something they don't have anymore.

The "Surrender Crimea" talking point stems from a discussion about Ukraine theoretically demanding Crimea back in peace talks, which like. No? That wasn't ever going to happen?

It really doesn't belong in the discussion regarding *concessions* because it was never on the table *shrug*

[PhaelixWW]

People arguing that Ukraine should accept an agreement granting Russia ownership/control of Donbas or other regions, though, are pushing for Ukraine to surrender.

Nah. You're still confusing the idea of "surrendering Donbas" with "surrendering". Despite the fact that they use the same word, those two statements are not the same because context continues to have meaning.

American Bar Association: Defining Peace Treaties

What is a peace treaty? It is a legal agreement between two or more hostile parties, usually countries or governments, which formally ends a state of war between the two parties. Peace treaties are different from other international documents that control conflicts in that they are often the culmination of international peace discussions, and seek permanent resolutions by establishing conditions for peace. A peace treaty is not the same as a surrender, in which one party agrees to give up arms; or a cease fire, in which parties agree to suspend hostilities temporarily; or an armistice agreement, in which parties agree to stop hostilities, but do not agree to long term conditions for peace.

Peace treaties, while varied, generally have one broad common goal: to outline conditions for permanent resolution of hostilities between two warring parties. To this end, peace treaty provisions tend to address common issues. These include the formal designation of borders, access to and allocation of natural and manmade resources, settlement of relevant debts, recognition of refugees, processes for solving future disputes, and identification of relevant behaviors for abiding by the treaty’s provisions.

History: Why World War I Ended With an Armistice Instead of a Surrender

But the war ended with an armistice, an agreement in which both sides agree to stop fighting, rather than a surrender. For both sides, an armistice was the fastest way to end the war's misery and carnage.

You'll also note that "making concessions" is a much wider category, that includes things like: "not blocking freshwater from Crimea", "agreeing not to join NATO", etc.

So there's a lot of room for "making concessions" to not be the same thing as "surrendering".

I really don't know why you're choosing this hill to die on.

[Ripster42]

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

Na, I'm not misrepresenting shit. You can go to my link. I was literally comparing what the person I quoted said, to the thing someone else said, and how they were functionally the same sentence. You just like someone who backs you as far as the ethnic cleansing in israel goes, and you let your rose colored glasses tint everything else they said, finding bullshit excuses to explain away abysmal, hypocritical behavior. Spare me your garbage white-wash, everyone else here knows what you are, and it's not a good person.

I think that branding Easo as pro-Russia poster is nothing short of laughable

You laugh at the wrong things. We're not branding easo as a "pro-russia poster", we're saying he took russian propaganda at face value, and discounted news from more reliable sources, while acting like an arrogant prig about how they had the inside scoop, when all they were doing was acting as cover for war crimes, wittingly or not.

You clearly don't (or are just unwilling to) understand the difference between making concessions for peace and surrendering.

They're the same thing. It's nice that you don't understand that. "Making concessions for peace" is a euphemism for "conditional surrender".

Edit: and boy, you should really read what you quote. "Making concessions for peace" would be right smack in the middle of surrender, as armistice, by your link, specifically excludes a "long term settlement [aka 'making concessions'] for peace [aka 'for peace']."

Double Edit: Let's remember what "making concessions for peace" meant in mid to late march: it meant the "demilitarization of ukraine", so please don't try to quibble about the 'laying down of arms' bit means.

[PhaelixWW]

They're the same thing. It's nice that you don't understand that. "Making concessions for peace" is a euphemism for "conditional surrender".

Except... no, they're not. A conditional surrender is a surrender with conditions. Making concessions for peace is peace with conditions.

One involves the laying down of arms and... surrendering authority to the other side. The other does not.

Edit: and boy, you should really read what you quote. "Making concessions for peace" would be right smack in the middle of surrender, as armistice, by your link, specifically excludes a "long term settlement [aka 'making concessions'] for peace [aka 'for peace']."

Maybe read harder again? Nobody is calling it an armistice.

I mean, literally the quote said... well, let me shorten it so you can comprehend better:

A peace treaty is not the same as a surrender, or a cease fire, or an armistice agreement

Those are all different terms, champ.

[Afrospinach]

But analysis can be sometimes wrong without being disingenuous. I think some people here are far too willing to jump straight from one to the other, which is actually a pretty disingenuous act in itself.

What shitpile are you reading from.

Many things are posted here without continually being challenged as "fog of war" or "needs further verification". This is only the position of a couple of particular posters here.

You know, while this is an "adult conversation", information posted from twitter and to some degree even breaking news from news sites should be considered as is and if you do not have a hidden agenda this should not be an issue even if it ends up being wrong.

As far as I can see it this is the situation regarding yourself, easo and gaidax.

1. You have some kind of reading comprehension issue because you are an army of one with this bullshit you keep on spouting.

2. Easo and Gaidax are poor communicators because apparently they seem to have this whole forum convinced they are "pro russian"

3. Easo and Gaidax are not pro Russian, but more to the point they have done a piss poor job of hiding the fact they are not pro Ukrainian, possibly even the opposite. This is not a binary problem. No really, how hard is it to look at what has unfolded and say "Damn the Ukrainians have really pulled one out of the hat". For these two - impossible. Read in to that what you want.

4. The former both have this narcissistic need to have an opinion that is more important than everyone else's eg:

Knowing more than professionals.

Having an incredible unique opinion that few - if any can have. "I read Cyrillic" "I lived there"

Treating everyone else's opinion with contempt whilst holding your own in high regard even it is soem bullshit like agreeing with facts from non other that Shalker. How much are you actually reading because I am sure at least few people remember what I am talking about. For you, no burden of proof is to high. For me. I say therefore it is.

And more disparaging shit like: Hopium, Copium, Reality, memes, fog of war, needs more verification from sources *i* trust, calling people "boy" and yes, saying that they want an "adult conversation". It is all attempts from absolute nobodies to establish some natural order. Fuck off. That certainly has not played out well from the days of "Ukraine has zero chance of winning this war" and treasures like

" That's why I think all these Ukrainian claims how they resist the invasion are sort of cute - they were not attacked for real just yet and I explained the reason why."

How you hold your view is a mystery to me. I think that is point number one, or you know, just another every day contrarian. There may not be an agenda here but there is certainly a disposition and everyone seems to be able to pick up on it but you.

It is possible to be wrong with some grace, you know. I mean damn, I did not post it here but I honestly thought the exercises at the border by the Russians were a stunt to drive up gas prices initially.

[Ripster42]

Those are all different terms, champ.

I edited my post before I saw this, but the point stands, at the time easo was posting, russia was demanding ukraine be demilitarized. It would have required surrender. So again, yes, they're the same thing.

[Endus]

Nah. You're still confusing the idea of "surrendering Donbas" with "surrendering". Despite the fact that they use the same word, those two statements are not the same because context continues to have meaning.
[...]
So there's a lot of room for "making concessions" to not be the same thing as "surrendering".

I really don't know why you're choosing this hill to die on.

Or maybe I recognize the word has a much broader meaning than how some groups might use it legalistically, and that trying to enforce that overly-limited standard is a bad-faith attempt to dismiss opinions you don't like without having to address the meat of what they're actually getting at.

Plus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(military)
"Surrender, in military terms, is the relinquishment of control over territory, combatants, fortifications, ships or armament to another power."

If you really want to draw on legal definitions, it's super not gonna help you; https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict....com/surrender

And if you're actually trying to argue that you're citing some internationally-defined term which stipulates a removal of armament from one side, you're not gonna find any such source, because that definition you're claiming does not exist. I went looking through UN treaty documents to make sure I wasn't overlooking something obvious, and couldn't find any such thing. And no, a side comment by the American Bar Association doesn't provide any such conclusive interpretation.

So even if I granted you were right on what you think it means, I'd still think you're using it improperly. But in truth, I don't even agree that you are right about what you think it means, in the first place. You don't have a proper source to cite for that. Armed surrenders are a thing that have happened in history.

[Mihalik]

All this.

Also...After all the evidence of mass rapes, mass murder, mass looting, now effectively confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt by international observes and UN war crimes investigators, someone with a shred of decency and empathy for the victims would at least chime in and say something like -Fuck I was wrong, these people are actually horrible and I condemn this shit wholeheartedly.

But that's just me I guess.

[PhaelixWW]

I edited my post before I saw this, but the point stands, at the time easo was posting, russia was demanding ukraine be demilitarized. It would have required surrender. So again, yes, they're the same thing.

No... they're not. Because Easo never said that Ukraine should accept demilitarization. He said that that Ukraine should make concessions for peace. Russia would obviously have to make concessions on their demand for demilitarization in order for this to happen. Because, you know, that's the nature of a peace treaty.

You're turning yourself into a pretzel trying to make your position work, and it just doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

*disingenuous drivel*

Learn the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb.

"Surrender" has multiple meanings. Saying "to surrender Donbas" is not the same thing as "to surrender".

In the context in which it was used, without a direct object, the intransitive verb meaning applies.

But... I bet you already know this, yet just choose to ignore it.

So... toodles.

[PhaelixWW]

Surrendering Donbas necessitates surrender. Idk what distinction you’re attempting to make, but if they surrender Donbas Ukraine is surrendering. Period.

No, it's literally not. Lulz.

[Deus Mortis]

Have not seen it mentioned, but here is the daily something is on fire/exploded in Russia.
Massive explosion moments ago at the Perm gunpowder plant in Russia, which produces components for Grad and Smerch missiles as well as air defense systems.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...32312821383168

[PhaelixWW]

Yes, it literally is. It’s right there in the phrase. “Surrender Donbas.”

You, also, apparently need to learn the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb, and how the same word can have different meanings depending on how it's used.

You do understand how words work right?

Yes, actually, quite well. You, however, apparently do not.

[Endus]

Learn the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb.

"Surrender" has multiple meanings. Saying "to surrender Donbas" is not the same thing as "to surrender".

In the context in which it was used, without a direct object, the intransitive verb meaning applies.

But... I bet you already know this, yet just choose to ignore it.

So... toodles.

Calling me "disingenuous", when you're the one inventing a non-definition out of half-truths and misrepresentations.

You're not using "surrender" appropriately. It literally does not mean what you're claiming, and you haven't a single source that supports you on this. Surrendering Donbas would be a surrender. I don't know what pit of doublespeak you fell down that led you to think describing the territory being surrendered made it not-a-surrender. Surrendering Donbas would be to surrender. This isn't a case of "surrender" being a transitive verb or not; "surrender" is clearly both, but neither use supports your interpretation of what it means.

Adding an object in this case just specifies what is being surrendered, where without such an object, it could mean a surrender without conditions or restrictions. Or it might not. Plenty of actual, historical military surrenders were not unconditional, and some allowed the one surrendering to keep their arms. You have literally no basis for what you're claiming on this, and you're pulling this "disingenuous" accusation out your ass to try and cover for that lack of support.

Edit: Hell, if you're gonna nitpick grammar, let's have at it;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surrender

"Definition of surrender (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb

1a: to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand
b: to give up completely or agree to forgo especially in favor of another
2a: to give (oneself) up into the power of another especially as a prisoner
b: to give (oneself) over to something (such as an influence)

intransitive verb
: to give oneself up into the power of another : YIELD"

Not really that meaningful a difference in interpretation, whether transitive or intransitive in use.

Or pick whatever other dictionary you like. I repeat; you do not have any source you can cite that supports your use of the word.

[Unholyground]

There's something more to this, to be certain. That's far too many fires in at least moderately strategic complexes to just be a series of accidents.

I doubt it's a bunch of ninja-esque American black ops teams or whatever, but sabotage feels possible, but even then this coordinated? I dunno. But it's off. Maybe a bunch of insurance scams write large, who knows with how corrupt Russian society is at this point.

There are special forces groups comprised of citizens from all over the world in Russia. They are being taken out from the inside.

[PhaelixWW]

It literally does not mean what you're claiming, and you haven't a single source that supports you on this.

Maybe I was wrong and the problem is really that you're just clueless about the English language and its grammar.


Merriam-Webster:




Dictionary.com:




Oxford:



There is only one definition for the intransitive use of "surrender". And it's not the same as the the way in which you're using the transitive version.

[Endus]

Maybe I was wrong and the problem is really that you're just clueless about the English language and its grammar.


There is only one definition for the intransitive use of "surrender". And it's not the same as the the way in which you're using the transitive version.

Literally all of those agree with me and contradict your use of the word. You're shitting me, right?