Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[erwinl]

That was in the nineteenth century, probably. They don't seem to be complaining now about being part of the kingdom of Belgium.

Belgium received Kelmis in 1919, as a compensation after World War I losses.

No. Belgium got other lands more to the east as compensation after the Great War.
The Kelmis area was not part of that. That part Belgium just annexed.
And did never ask the Kelmis people if they wanted to become Belgian. No referendum.

 

[dudalb]

No. Belgium got other lands more to the east as compensation after the Great War.
The Kelmis area was not part of that. That part Belgium just annexed.
And did never ask the Kelmis people if they wanted to become Belgian. No referendum.

Well. Germany did not bother to ask the people of Alsace and Lorraine what they wanted back in 1870.

 

[Wildy]

Russian forces should, for example, evacuate Kherson:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson)

I was thinking about this non-answer (how exactly is this a concession?) and I realised something. Why is giving up Kherson the go-to example of a concession and not withdrawing from the Zaporizhzhia NPP as an example?

 

[Michel H]

I was thinking about this non-answer (how exactly is this a concession?) and I realised something. Why is giving up Kherson the go-to example of a concession and not withdrawing from the Zaporizhzhia NPP as an example?

According to my suggested peace plan, the Russians should withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant too (and this seems to be a good example, in view of the current security risks).

According to my plan, both the Ukrainians and the Russians would make substantial concessions: Ukraine would accept that Crimea is Russian, and the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, and would remain neutral (no joining NATO), while Russia would withdraw its forces to their February 23 positions, and would have to renounce their rather extreme idea of demilitarizing Ukraine.

Ukraine would have to accept the key idea of ceding territories in order to bring peace, and have a better life again.

 

[Wildy]

The problem with your "peace plan" is that Russia doesn't make any substantial concessions at all.

Withdrawing to where they were prior to the invasion isn't a concession since they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Renouncing an idea is meaningless since they're to get the thing they want anyway a "neutral" (readro-Russian) Ukraine.
You don't demand they give up their ideas on other territorial ambitions, you don't demand they recognise the legitimacy of the borders of your now reduced Ukraine. You don't expect anything from Russia at all, just reward them for their actions since they illegally annexed Crimea in 2014.

Ukraine on the other hand is expected to take the L in your "concessions". At this point we may as well as why Ukraine should have defended themselves at all.

 

[Craig4]

According to my suggested peace plan, the Russians should withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant too (and this seems to be a good example, in view of the current security risks).

According to my plan, both the Ukrainians and the Russians would make substantial concessions: Ukraine would accept that Crimea is Russian, and the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, and would remain neutral (no joining NATO), while Russia would withdraw its forces to their February 23 positions, and would have to renounce their rather extreme idea of demilitarizing Ukraine.

Ukraine would have to accept the key idea of ceding territories in order to bring peace, and have a better life again.

Why are you insisting that Russia be allowed to steal Crimea? Ukrainian attacks have resulted in mass exodus of Russians from occupied Crimea. Conventional warfare pressuring from the north while Ukraine continues deep battle in the Russian occupied territories are hollowing out Crimea. Ukraine does not appear to need to concede anything. Did you see that stupid Russian bitch crying about having to leave Crimea after the successful attack the air base? Did you also notice the mass traffic jam on the bridge. What Ukraine is doing is working.

To have peace, Ukraine just needs to keep killing Russians and NATO needs to keep providing the means for Ukrainians to kill Russians.

I'd also note that by 2025, Europe will have largely transitioned to LNG and green hydrogen. The loss of that revenue will finally put Russia in its proper place, stuck in its own borders militarily and economically irrelevant and unable to threaten their neighbors. A subjugated Russia is better for everyone, including Russians.

 

[Michel H]

The problem with your "peace plan" is that Russia doesn't make any substantial concessions at all.

Withdrawing to where they were prior to the invasion isn't a concession since they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Renouncing an idea is meaningless since they're to get the thing they want anyway a "neutral" (readro-Russian) Ukraine.
You don't demand they give up their ideas on other territorial ambitions, you don't demand they recognise the legitimacy of the borders of your now reduced Ukraine. You don't expect anything from Russia at all, just reward them for their actions since they illegally annexed Crimea in 2014.

Ukraine on the other hand is expected to take the L in your "concessions". At this point we may as well as why Ukraine should have defended themselves at all.

Withdrawing to where they were prior to the invasion isn't a concession since they shouldn't be there in the first place.

I disagree. The Russians currently control Kherson and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. If they volontarily withdraw from these places after a reasonable peace plan (and the refugees return), this is clearly a significant concession. If no peace plan is agreed, these places might become Russian territory, and Ukraine would lose a major power plant.

You don't demand they give up their ideas on other territorial ambitions, you don't demand they recognise the legitimacy of the borders of your now reduced Ukraine.

According to my plan, Russia should give up any other territorial claims they might have in Ukraine (Ukraine would just lose Crimea, and the pre-invasion Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics). The Russians should not try to restore the USSR by using military force. In addition, sanctions should be lifted.

You don't expect anything from Russia at all, just reward them for their actions since they illegally annexed Crimea in 2014.

I expect them to withdraw to pre-February 24 lines (again, a very big concession, in practise). I believe Ukraine and the West made a big mistake by heavily sanctioning Crimea and Russia after the former joined the latter in 2014, after a democratic process (even if that process wasn't quite perfect and ideal). In principle, nobody should be punished for respecting democracy.

 

[Michel H]

Why are you insisting that Russia be allowed to steal Crimea? Ukrainian attacks have resulted in mass exodus of Russians from occupied Crimea. Conventional warfare pressuring from the north while Ukraine continues deep battle in the Russian occupied territories are hollowing out Crimea. Ukraine does not appear to need to concede anything. Did you see that stupid Russian bitch crying about having to leave Crimea after the successful attack the air base? Did you also notice the mass traffic jam on the bridge. What Ukraine is doing is working.

To have peace, Ukraine just needs to keep killing Russians and NATO needs to keep providing the means for Ukrainians to kill Russians.

I'd also note that by 2025, Europe will have largely transitioned to LNG and green hydrogen. The loss of that revenue will finally put Russia in its proper place, stuck in its own borders militarily and economically irrelevant and unable to threaten their neighbors. A subjugated Russia is better for everyone, including Russians.

Why are you insisting that Russia be allowed to steal Crimea?

I wouldn't use the word "steal", since there was a more or less serious referendum (in addition to some legal controversies about whether the 1954 transfer to Ukraine was valid).

What Ukraine is doing is working.

Ukraine has certainly been able (with Western support) to cause many worries for Vladimir Putin lately, but this current war is very painful for many Ukrainians (refugees or not):

Ukraine war: Russia railway station strike kills 25, injures dozens (August 25, 2022)

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62666188).
, and for many people in Western Europe who have difficulties paying their energy bills:

'Lives at risk' without more help on energy bills

(https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62674301).

A good peace deal to end this war would therefore be useful, even though we don't hear much of such a thing nowadays.

 

[Wildy]

I disagree. The Russians currently control Kherson and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. If they volontarily withdraw from these places after a reasonable peace plan (and the refugees return), this is clearly a significant concession.

In the same way an armed robber voluntarily withdraws their weapon after you hand them all your valuables.

According to my plan, Russia should give up any other territorial claims they might have in Ukraine (Ukraine would just lose Crimea, and the pre-invasion Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics).

Oh, so the puppet republics won't be giving up their claims to the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia would be required to withdraw from. Then when those republics "choose" to join Russia, they'd get the territorial claims back because they'd get them from an "independent" country instead.

I expect them to withdraw to pre-February 24 lines (again, a very big concession, in practise). I believe Ukraine and the West made a big mistake by heavily sanctioning Crimea and Russia after the former joined the latter in 2014, after a democratic process (even if that process wasn't quite perfect and ideal). In principle, nobody should be punished for respecting democracy.

An illegal process. Crimea joined Russia in an illegal process. You seem to enjoy ignoring that part of the whole thing.

 

[Michel H]

An illegal process. Crimea joined Russia in an illegal process. You seem to enjoy ignoring that part of the whole thing.

Controversies surrounding the legality of the (1954) transfer remained a sore point in relations between Ukraine and Russia for the first few years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in particular in the internal politics of Crimea.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Aftermath)

The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination)

 

[dudalb]

Funny how "Peace At Any Price" never leads to any substantial Peace, isn;t it?

 

[Michel H]

Funny how "Peace At Any Price" never leads to any substantial Peace, isn;t it?

It can lead to substantial and long-lasting peace when you are consistent in your principles of non-violence, advocated by respected people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi:

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Six Principles of Nonviolence are:

Principle one: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people. ...

Principle three: Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people.

(https://www.unodc.org/documents/e4j..._Extremism_Six_Principles_of_Non-Violence.pdf)


I am not recommending peace at any price, I am trying to advise peace with dignity, where all parties can feel (to some extent) proud and happy. We are all citizens.

 

[Mike!]

It can lead to substantial and long-lasting peace when you are consistent in your principles of non-violence, advocated by respected people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi:

(https://www.unodc.org/documents/e4j..._Extremism_Six_Principles_of_Non-Violence.pdf)


I am not recommending peace at any price, I am trying to advise peace with dignity, where all parties can feel (to some extent) proud and happy. We are all citizens.

The Russians have nothing to be proud or happy about, they are murderous barbarians that should be wiped from the face of the Earth itself, and nothing short of that can be considered acceptable at this point.

 

[theprestige]

It can lead to substantial and long-lasting peace when you are consistent in your principles of non-violence, advocated by respected people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi:

The nonviolence advocated by King and Gandhi depends entirely on having a regime and a society that are generally amenable to human rights and humanitarian impulses. Nonviolence in Nazi Germany didn't serve its victims very well at all.

 

[Michel H]

The nonviolence advocated by King and Gandhi depends entirely on having a regime and a society that are generally amenable to human rights and humanitarian impulses. Nonviolence in Nazi Germany didn't serve its victims very well at all.

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

The same cannot be said about the U.S. and U.K. at the end of WWII (think about Hiroshima, for example).

 

[junkshop]

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

The same cannot be said about the U.S. and U.K. at the end of WWII (think about Hiroshima, for example).

And yet Russia has targeted hospitals, shopping malls, theatres and apartment buildings.

Russian publicly stated 'official policy' is a lie

WWII ended nearly 80 years ago. Decisions made by long dead leaders in that conflict, for good or ill, are irrelevant to Russia's current, unprovoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

 

[Mike!]

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

 

[trustbutverify]

Russia has an official policy of not targeting civilians in this current conflict.

The same cannot be said about the U.S. and U.K. at the end of WWII (think about Hiroshima, for example).

Are you joking? Putin's strategy, in every theater of war, is based almost exclusively on targeting and pulverizing civilians... including Ukraine. The only reason for the current half- hearted masquerade is the international media intensity.

 

[trustbutverify]

It can lead to substantial and long-lasting peace when you are consistent in your principles of non-violence, advocated by respected people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi:

The strategy employed by King and Gandhi requires an enemy that can be shamed. Such is not the case here.

 

[Craig4]

I wouldn't use the word "steal", since there was a more or less serious referendum (in addition to some legal controversies about whether the 1954 transfer to Ukraine was valid).

Ukraine has certainly been able (with Western support) to cause many worries for Vladimir Putin lately, but this current war is very painful for many Ukrainians (refugees or not):

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62666188).
, and for many people in Western Europe who have difficulties paying their energy bills:

(https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62674301).

A good peace deal to end this war would therefore be useful, even though we don't hear much of such a thing nowadays.

There was no referendum. The only country with the authority to hold any sort of election in Ukraine is Ukraine. When did Ukraine call for a referendum in Crimea?