Merged Russian (genocidal) internal propaganda and goals about Ukraine

[Michel H]

Are you going to give Putin your lunch money as well?

No, I am trying to be neutral.

I blame Putin for starting this war, in February. I believe this invasion has been violent, and seriously illegal, but Ukraine is partly responsible too (too many sanctions, shelling of the independent Donbass republics, trying to join NATO, forcing people to use the Ukrainian language, refusing to compromise ...).

Many people are so anti-Russian, they are willing to starve and freeze, with the hope of hurting Russia just a little bit. I am not (at least, if I have a choice).

 

[Dave Rogers]

(my goal here is certainly not to deliver constant praise for the Russians)

Not quite, no; rather, it's to recite their propaganda.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

That was the status quo BEFORE Russia invaded.

What makes you think that Russia would be okay with that, given that they started a war with the explicit aim of regime change in Kyiv into something pro-Russian?

If Russia just wanted what you think Ukraine should offer, they wouldn't have attacked in the first place.
But this attack was always about Russia taking control of Ukraine, nothing less.

That was the status quo BEFORE Russia invaded.

No, I don't think so. Ukraine (like their Western allies), for example, does not accept that Crimea is Russian, and sanctions have been imposed.

I assume (though I cannot really say that I am totally sure about this) that, if Ukraine was willing to compromise a little bit along the lines I have tried to explain, Russia would become more flexible and less hostile too, and would no longer describe the Ukrainians as hostile Nazis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I assume (though I cannot really say that I am totally sure about this) that, if Ukraine was willing to compromise a little bit along the lines I have tried to explain, Russia would become more flexible and less hostile too, and would no longer describe the Ukrainians as hostile Nazis.

If true, you're living in a fantasy world. Russia has never shown any sign of being reasonable, flexible or humane, and has made it clear in public statements that it will not accept any peace terms it does not dictate.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

It's not Ukraine that needs to change. They just need to keep killing Russians. The more Russians they kill they more danger they put Putin in. Every dead Russian bring Putin closer to assassination or at least being deposed.

Most of the power has been restored. We can steal Russia's money in US and European banks to pay to rebuild Ukraine. They Orcs have nearly a Trillion dollars parked overseas in fiat currencies that we cant take and give to Ukraine to rebuild. I've read several legal papers that suggest ways to make it all legal.

It's not Ukraine that needs to change. They just need to keep killing Russians.

Ukrainians are currently killing Russians, using weapons provided by the West.

But Ukrainians are getting killed by Russians too (and there is a lot of destruction taking place).

 

[arthwollipot]

No, I am trying to be neutral.

Saying that Ukraine should capitulate to every one of Russia's demands is not neutral.

 

[Olmstead]

No, I don't think so. Ukraine (like their Western allies), for example, does not accept that Crimea is Russian, and sanctions have been imposed.

I assume (though I cannot really say that I am totally sure about this) that, if Ukraine was willing to compromise a little bit along the lines I have tried to explain, Russia would become more flexible and less hostile too, and would no longer describe the Ukrainians as hostile Nazis.

Tell you what, after the Ukranian army captures Belgorod, Ukraine will start "compromising". Become more "flexible".

Take a page out of the Russian playbook, so to speak.

 

[Michel H]

Saying that Ukraine should capitulate to every one of Russia's demands is not neutral.

No, I don't think Ukraine should necessarily accept all Russian demands.

In order to bring or restore peace, there has to be mutual concessions.

The main concession Russia should make, in my opinion (in a global peace plan), is to withdraw all its forces to where they were before February 24. The should be no conquest, no territorial gain for Russia because they decided to attack Ukraine.

 

[erwinl]

No, I don't think Ukraine should necessarily accept all Russian demands.

In order to bring or restore peace, there has to be mutual concessions.

The main concession Russia should make, in my opinion (in a global peace plan), is to withdraw all its forces to where they were before February 24. The should be no conquest, no territorial gain for Russia because they decided to attack Ukraine.

Like what Ukraine offered way back in March?
Including an offer for the possibility of Ukraine to remain nuetral ie not enter nato? And with Russia still continuing the war?

They actually tried what you're suggesting now and it simply did not work. Putin was not interested in peace and just wanted to continue the war.

 

[Craig4]

Ukrainians are currently killing Russians, using weapons provided by the West.

But Ukrainians are getting killed by Russians too (and there is a lot of destruction taking place).

All Russia has to do is return to their pre-2014 borders and the killing stops. It's just that simple. I can't think of a better use of North American and European tax dollars than arming Ukraine to dispatch Russia. Ukraine has already reclaimed some territory taken in 2014. Ukraine doesn't need to talk, they just need to keep killing. Real peace will be a neutered Russia with a crippled military and the expelling the Orcs from all of their territory that was stolen in 2014.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, I don't think so. Ukraine (like their Western allies), for example, does not accept that Crimea is Russian, and sanctions have been imposed.

I assume (though I cannot really say that I am totally sure about this) that, if Ukraine was willing to compromise a little bit along the lines I have tried to explain, Russia would become more flexible and less hostile too, and would no longer describe the Ukrainians as hostile Nazis.

and you think Ukraine should gamble its existence on your (by your own admittance) baseless assumption?

 

[erwinl]

and you think Ukraine should gamble its existence on your (by your own admittance) baseless assumption?

Of course, they should do that!

And if it should fail, and Russia would gobble up then entirety of Ukraine, then MichelH wil undoubtedly feel feel very bad about himself, so I'm sure this would balance out with the result of the war and the disappearance of Ukraine.

Or something.

 

[Aridas]

and you think Ukraine should gamble its existence on your (by your own admittance) baseless assumption?

Of course not. They should just compromise a little bit by giving Russia massive concessions that will just embolden Russia to try to take even more.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes, to actually stop bullying and aggression, one needs to actually force the bully to cry uncle. They'll fairly certainly be pissy about it, but they'll think twice before trying again. Dealing with dishonest supremacists of whatever type that are trying to subjugate you will generally never end well for you if they think that they can walk all over you. Slavery and death are terrible options.

Michel H has yet to acknowledge Russia's failures to act in good faith and deal honestly with the actual implications and reality of the situation because of that, by the look of it. No point in bothering to care about his opinions when he's so busy ignoring that extremely relevant chunk of the big picture.

 

[jeremyp]

I see no reason why Ukraine should become a vassal of Russia. It can be just neutral and independent.

You are forgetting that Ukraine was neutral and independent before 2014 and that didn't stop Russia from seizing parts of its territory and finally starting a full scale invasion.

Let's say Ukraine accedes to your demands. What's to stop Russia from doing exactly the same thing again?

Russia is not a country that can be trusted to honour the treaties it has signed up to. Ukraine recognises this, so they are doing the only logical thing: they are destroying Russia's armed forces.

One man can end this conflict and this slaughter. It's the same man who started it. His name is Vladimir Putin.

 

[jeremyp]

No, I am trying to be neutral.

Why?

I'm not neutral. I'm on the side of the people who were invaded and who are being murdered by Russian gangsters. Neutrality in this conflict is excusing Russian war crimes.

I blame Putin for starting this war, in February. I believe this invasion has been violent, and seriously illegal

Why are you proposing that he should be allowed to get away with it?

but Ukraine is partly responsible too (too many sanctions, shelling of the independent Donbass republics, trying to join NATO, forcing people to use the Ukrainian language, refusing to compromise ...).

Ukraine isn't responsible for the sanctions. The sanctions are being imposed by Europe and the USA. The sanctions would be lifted if the Russians left Ukraine, including Crimea. That's all they have to do.

As for trying to join NATO: Russia have done everything possible to make it look like a necessary move. If you don't want a country to join a defensive pact against you, it's best not to invade it.

Many people are so anti-Russian, they are willing to starve and freeze, with the hope of hurting Russia just a little bit. I am not (at least, if I have a choice).

They are not hurting Russia just a little bit. Have you seen the latest news on the invasion? Spoiler: it's not going well for the World's second most powerful military*.

*previously thought to be - erroneously.

 

[Wildy]

Ukraine can have that after they expel the Orcs from their territory. They already took from the Orcs parts of their country that were occupied in 2014. The filthy rats are abandoning Crimea and it will fall. Ukraine doesn't have to talk, they can just take. That's all Russia understands.

There's already talk about movement from Crimea being restricted in case they need to start drafting people there.

No, I don't think Ukraine should necessarily accept all Russian demands.

In order to bring or restore peace, there has to be mutual concessions.

The main concession Russia should make, in my opinion (in a global peace plan), is to withdraw all its forces to where they were before February 24. The should be no conquest, no territorial gain for Russia because they decided to attack Ukraine.

Mutual concessions. Of which you've never suggested. In fact everything you suggest is heavily slanted in favour of Russia. They essentially concede nothing, but gain everything.

 

[lomiller]

Well, rabid dog or not (my goal here is certainly not to deliver constant praise for the Russians), my advice for Ukraine (see first replies of https://twitter.com/ZelenskaUA/status/1567182927703728129) is certainly not to tell them "Guys, let the monster devour you!". It is, rather, an invitation to take the right steps to protect themselves (and others), and stop this fighting.

Sometimes, being humble, admitting one's mistakes requires far more courage for some people that going to battle.

How about this for an appropriate step. Demand a swath of south-western Russia be handed over to Ukraine to act as a defensible buffer against future Russian attacks. Not only would it's get Russia out of a war it's clearly loosing without further loss of life it would help prevent future conflicts.

 

[lomiller]

It's very simple (in my opinion): neutrality + Crimea belongs to Russia + the Donbass republics are independent + no more sanctions.

Then I think they might be able to get a good Russian withdrawal, Russian gas and oil, peace and economic prosperity ...

Nope. They are clearly Ukrainian territory and Russia has signed treaties where it agreed to respect those borders. End of story.

In terms of extracting itself from this war however, I think it's appropriate that Russia turn over some of it's territory to act as a buffer zone to prevent future conflicts. Russian sympathizers in Ukraine or this newly Ukrainian territory who can always be transported elsewhere.

 

[lomiller]

if Ukraine was willing to compromise a little bit along the lines I have tried to explain, Russia would become more flexible and less hostile too, and would no longer describe the Ukrainians as hostile Nazis.

No, Russians position is that Ukrainians don't exist and won't exist when they are done with Ukraine, and that Russia will use whatever force is required to make that happen. They have shown no willingness to compromise on this point, ever. Next up is the Baltic Republics, then Poland and on into Western Europe where you personally can face the "reasonable" ethnic cleansing Russia is dealing out.

 

[Aridas]

Why?

I'm not neutral. I'm on the side of the people who were invaded and who are being murdered by Russian gangsters. Neutrality in this conflict is excusing Russian war crimes.

I can call myself neutral, I think, in a sense. I care about the actual principles and situation in play, rather than having any particular prejudice towards either side.

Taking into account that 1) Russia's behaved extremely badly, 2) Michel H's complaints about Ukraine's wrongs seem to simply be Russia being unhappy at suffering actual consequences for their extremely bad behavior, and 3) Michel H's statements about Russia's proposed motives sure seem to be a bit farcical on scrutiny, it's hard to treat Michel H as actually neutral.

Of course, as you've touched on, if one is talking about a greatly warped version of neutral, like would be the case with demands for 50-50 media coverage of the rights and wrongs in a contest between an honest businessman and a mafia boss, then Michel H's stance might make more sense in the light of that version of neutral.