The “deal” requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That’s about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying “pre-2014 borders and then we can talk.”
Ukraine will lose more territory going forward, that’s the fact of the situation. Russia is winning the war, and it’s pretty clear that the west is not able to do anything about it.
Russia is being diplomatic, but if nobody wants to do diplomacy on the other end then they’re obviously going to take what they want by force at that point. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
Yeah it is when you are in a position of power. This is precisely how NATO has been conducting diplomacy with Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I’m just explaining to you how the real world works here. That said, Russia gave Ukraine way more chances than US gave any of the countries it invaded.
You said Russia was being diplomatic. Nobody is arguing that powerful countries are often cruel. So again, if this is Russia’s diplomacy towards Ukraine, do you agree that America was diplomatic towards Afghanistan?
Hmm interestingly if such language laws would been implemented in country they don’t like, they would immediately scream about “cultural genocide”, often dropping the “cultural” word too.
This is about ceasefire violations, not ethnic cleansing. It’s also amazing that they blame it entirely on Ukraine on an image that shows multiple explosions on both sides of the line on the first day. By the time the two sides have started shelling each other, the ceasefire is dead. The side that does more of it after that is not somehow more culpable for the end of the ceasefire.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Ukraine has repeatedly used cluster munitions on civilians. They literally just did it in Crimea a day ago.
If the victims are describing themselves as Ukrainian, which ethnicity is Ukraine cleansing here in your opinion?
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
I’m sure you will understand that watching an hour-long documentary is not a reasonable expectation to respond to a fediverse comment.
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time, it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care to understand the subject.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail. This is literally why the eastern regions wanted to separate in the first place.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
Here’s a whole lecture you can watch on the problems that led to separatism
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine, and why eastern regions decided to separate which is the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014. They weren’t hiding it either
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
Saying “they’re doing ethnic cleansing” and backing it up with a link that’s just “they’re using cluster munitions” is literally exactly this
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
The point I was making was that the only person who described themselves in terms of identity in that link called himself Ukrainian. This makes it very poor evidence for Ukraine targeting ethnic Russians.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time.
See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
What exactly do you think I’m trying to convince you of that I haven’t been open and honest about? I said exactly why I do not think that that source is worth my time based on the five other sources you put it with and how you used them.
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine
I know what the demographics are. I have watched Mearsheimer’s lecture, but it really is not necessary to get an overview of something as basic as where different ethnicities are concentrated in Ukraine. The fact that there are a bunch of ethnic Russians living in that part is not evidence of ethnic cleansing by Ukraine. Neither is Russia feeling threatened by eastern European countries joining the EU or NATO.
the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014.
So your position is that the ethnic cleansing happened in the ~two months between Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine in February and the declarations of the DPR and LPR in April?
The “deal” requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That’s about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying “pre-2014 borders and then we can talk.”
Ukraine will lose more territory going forward, that’s the fact of the situation. Russia is winning the war, and it’s pretty clear that the west is not able to do anything about it.
That’s a hard shift from “Russia is being diplomatic” to “Russia can just take what it wants”
Russia is being diplomatic, but if nobody wants to do diplomacy on the other end then they’re obviously going to take what they want by force at that point. Not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
It’s not meaningful diplomacy to say “give us everything we want or we will take everything we want”
Yeah it is when you are in a position of power. This is precisely how NATO has been conducting diplomacy with Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Oh right, so do you consider America’s behaviour towards Afghanistan diplomatic then?
I’m just explaining to you how the real world works here. That said, Russia gave Ukraine way more chances than US gave any of the countries it invaded.
You said Russia was being diplomatic. Nobody is arguing that powerful countries are often cruel. So again, if this is Russia’s diplomacy towards Ukraine, do you agree that America was diplomatic towards Afghanistan?
The people living there don’t want to be a part of a state that tried to ethnically cleanse them, surprise surprise.
Are you referring to the language laws?
No, they’re referring to the ethnic cleansing
Hmm interestingly if such language laws would been implemented in country they don’t like, they would immediately scream about “cultural genocide”, often dropping the “cultural” word too.
Indeed
Use of cluster munitions against enemy troops is not ethnic cleansing. If you think it is, then Russia is guilty of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
As above: this is not ethnic cleansing, this is warfare against enemy troops and a tactic employed widely by Russia in Ukraine.
“There is warfare in this warzone”. Which part of this article is about ethnic cleansing?
If the victims are describing themselves as Ukrainian, which ethnicity is Ukraine cleansing here in your opinion?
I’m sure you will understand that watching an hour-long documentary is not a reasonable expectation to respond to a fediverse comment.
This is about ceasefire violations, not ethnic cleansing. It’s also amazing that they blame it entirely on Ukraine on an image that shows multiple explosions on both sides of the line on the first day. By the time the two sides have started shelling each other, the ceasefire is dead. The side that does more of it after that is not somehow more culpable for the end of the ceasefire.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Ukraine has repeatedly used cluster munitions on civilians. They literally just did it in Crimea a day ago.
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time, it’s pretty clear you don’t actually care to understand the subject.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail. This is literally why the eastern regions wanted to separate in the first place.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Here’s a whole lecture you can watch on the problems that led to separatism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time.
See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine, and why eastern regions decided to separate which is the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014. They weren’t hiding it either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
Saying “they’re doing ethnic cleansing” and backing it up with a link that’s just “they’re using cluster munitions” is literally exactly this
The point I was making was that the only person who described themselves in terms of identity in that link called himself Ukrainian. This makes it very poor evidence for Ukraine targeting ethnic Russians.
What exactly do you think I’m trying to convince you of that I haven’t been open and honest about? I said exactly why I do not think that that source is worth my time based on the five other sources you put it with and how you used them.
I know what the demographics are. I have watched Mearsheimer’s lecture, but it really is not necessary to get an overview of something as basic as where different ethnicities are concentrated in Ukraine. The fact that there are a bunch of ethnic Russians living in that part is not evidence of ethnic cleansing by Ukraine. Neither is Russia feeling threatened by eastern European countries joining the EU or NATO.
So your position is that the ethnic cleansing happened in the ~two months between Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine in February and the declarations of the DPR and LPR in April?