• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.

    Not really sure what those backgrounds are supposed to signify in this context. The original point, in case you missed it, was that a former high level US official openly stated that this is a proxy war.

    My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.

    That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.

    It’s a war by Russia against Ukraine, where Ukraine gets help from NATO and other countries. And of course it’s costly, but you are getting off course. Which seems to be systemic to your argumentation.

    That’s a false narrative and I’ve provided you lots of sources explaining why in detail. Please spend the time to educate yourself on the subject.

    Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

    Perhaps you’re not aware of what the Minsk agreements are?

    Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

    Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.

    Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

    The part where Ukraine was committing war crimes against the civilian population of Donbas which western outlets such as CNN openly reported on https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296

    I’ll ignore the rest about NATO and warnings and so on. You are just flooding the zone because you want to distract from the fact that you are defending the invasion of an independent country by Russia.

    Ah yes, you’ll ignore all the history and the context for the war. That’s how we know that you’re not actually arguing in good faith here. Also, I’m not defending anything here. What I’m doing is explaining why the war happened and the role NATO played in creating the situation that led to the conflict.

    • rstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Very convenient of you to forget that prior to annexation of Crimea, the west sponsored a coup against a democratically elected government in Ukraine after which point a civil war started.

      Even when this was true - this would have been a inner Ukrainian affair.

      Is this in your eyes a justification for breaking the Budapest Memorandum and invading another country?

    • rstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      You are again diverting and misleading.

      I wrote:

      Either you don’t know your history or you want to go off the topic again. Budapest is not Minsk, and both treaties are not the same.

      In the Budapest Memorandum Russia guaranteed to honour the then existing borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In exchange these nations gave their part of the nuclear arsenal of the USSR to Russia.

      Russia broke that treaty 20 years later with the invasion of Crimea. The Minsk Protocol was trying to calm down the tensions resulting from that breach of contract. Nowhere in the Minsk Protocol is a clause that forbids Ukraine to arm. Which cluses were broken by NATO or Ukraine? The text is online.

      You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

      Did Russia honour the Budapest Memorandum?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        You are again diverting and misleading.

        I’m doing no such thing.

        You deleted the content of the Budapest Memorandum from my quote.

        Russia honoured the Budapest Memorandum right up to the point when NATO ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 which caused a civil war. I wonder why you would ignore this important context…

        • rstein
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          So an invasion and annexation of parts of another country is justified, when there is a coup? (There wasn’t, btw. )

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            There was and it’s a well documented fact. Meanwhile, the invasion was modelled on the precedent set by NATO invading Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia did exactly the same thing in Donbas.

            • rstein
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              You could not find a more reputable source? Greyzone author, really?

              And it is news to me, that NATO troops were in Yugoslavia. Got a source for that? Or again a lie by you as the background of western politicians?

                • rstein
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Ad hominem? Not really. I contest his neutrality. It’s a partisan publication.

                  You wrote about the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO invasion. What has KFOR to do with that?

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    You’re using ad hominem to dismiss the content of the article. KFOR is the NATO force that is currently occupying Serbia that is left over from the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. Are you seriously so ignorant that you do not know about the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia?

    • rstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      You are again flooding and evading.

      A list of 10 not so influential western politicians. Ok, you said “pretty much all”, I am waiting for at least 20. I’ll give you Trump and Sunak.

      Not really sure what those backgrounds are supposed to signify in this context. The original point, in case you missed it, was that a former high level US official openly stated that this is a proxy war.

      Oh, that is simple. I pointed out a false statement by you.

      You wrote:

      Not sure what your point here is, pretty much all western politicians have these sorts of backgrounds.

      Do you stand by this statement or do you retract it?

    • rstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      As you are flooding and evading, I’ll try to break this down a bit…

    • rstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      My point: Your source was an ambassador in an unproblematic nice to live in country, just as a thank you from his President. The work was done by the 1st Attaché. No politician, no influence. Crap as a source.

      That’s not how this works, what he says obviously carries weight given his status, and most importantly what he said is the truth. If you’re trying to claim that the former US ambassador doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then surely academics such as John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky do. They happen to agree with him.

      That is how it works. He has no political weight, he was a trophy ambassador. And your Mearsheimer and Chomsky are, let’s say, “controversly” discussed.