Russia is now bombing Ukraine

[cwmbrancity]

Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Mali, Sudan etc have all felt Vlad’s love.

They said “uncle Vlad, can we be sodomised repeatedly please?” and behold: no-lube fisting!

What a gent.

[decibal cooper]

5 minutes ago, cwmbrancity said:

Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Mali, Sudan etc have all felt Vlad’s love.

They said “uncle Vlad, can we be sodomised repeatedly please?” and behold: no-lube fisting!

What a gent.

Assad invited him there at least, although granted there were a lot of civilians who maybe did not welcome Russia's presence? And besides, who would not welcome the 'no-lube fisting' foreign policy. It's a must!

[cwmbrancity]

No.

He wanted the prestige for home & abroad ie BRICS, weaponising & compounding a migration crisis the west had already initiated in the process too.

Top parasitical fisting, Vlad.

 

[decibal cooper]

BRICS seems to be gaining some momentum, Saudis just joined. I imagine those countries are getting tired of the endless sanctions when not falling into line with Western dictates, although the sanctions on Russia seem to not have crippled it, like our incompetent leaders and analysts said it would. I wonder if BRICS will be successful, and if so how long before they abandon using US dollar for all transactions.

[may be rude]

11 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

My brother in Christ, I politely disagree. Russia did the same thing in Georgia in 2008, and there the conflict was also very much tied to NATO membership. Russia now occupies something like 20% of Georgia after the conflict there. Having a NATO country on its border is a clear red line, as Putin made clear with that invasion of Georgia.

??? what is your point. seems like a non-sequitor fallacy. or maybe appeal to force fallacy, if you're arguing that we should appease invading armies or something

11 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

Another way to look at this question of aggression is to do a thought experiment and imagine if China, Russia, and Iran started a military alliance and began building military bases all throughout South America. Their next and final move was to recruit/invite Mexico into the military alliance. Do you not think that America would invade Mexico to prevent this from happening?

appeal to hypotheticals fallacy. different scenario with different context.

11 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

Obama was pressured to intervene in Ukraine when things started heating up there, and he declined. He said something like 'Ukraine is not of dire strategic interest to America, but it will always be so for Russia.' One user mentioned taking into context the last decade, but you need to go further. NATO was Russia's mortal enemy during the entirety of the Cold War. If you do not take these things into consideration, then in my humble opinion, you are maybe buying into American propaganda. Just like the Russians we do it too.

??? what is your point. yes, nato was primarily strategized as a defense against russia. the context of that involves them siding with hitler and trying to conquer the world in world war 2, then shortly thereafter developing insane nukes

 

putin invaded ukraine. usa didn't make him do that. are you arguing it was a reasonable response to usa? this argument doesn't even make sense. if zelensky invaded russia then maybe you could try a proxy argument but here it's just vague and refers to nothing. walk me through the logic again. 

1. nato

2. ???

3. putin had no choice but to invade ukraine and fire missles blindly into civilian areas literally thousands of times

 

dude this makes no sense. the "USA" argument skates by the simple fact of ukrainian choice. they chose to fight. it's some dark fuckery to suggest that USA is somehow sinisterly manipulating events in order to cause an ally nation to fight a war for them. is that the suggestion? it's darkly fucked up, in addition to being wrong, and in addition to being offensive. it's deeply fucking wrong, i can tell you as someone who consumes way too much high quality content about us government, intelligence and military, and has for a very long time.  

 

 

the below poster is a known propagandist

\/

Edited January 11 by trying to be less rude

[zlemflolia]

ukraine has been violating peace agreements for a decade, attacking their own citizens in russian border regions through drawn out civil wars, cutting off crimeans' water supply.  if you want to make these evil great man arguments youll fool yourself into thinking putin is some all powerful dictator and the only person making decisions. 

you think you hold a moral high ground on "russia bad, ukraine good" and so you can just say any old bullshit and hope it sticks.  but if you do it you only do a disservice to the ukrainian people who have been mistreated so badly by their government, which by the way is a government instated with CIA backing during 2014 far right coup. 

is putin/russia treating the ukrainian people worse?  yeah, definitely, but youre missing even basic nuance and context when you continually try to simplify things.  ignoring the crimes of the ukrainian government, which used to often be called out in western media, before this of course, isn't going to help anyone

not only that, you are denying any US involvement in this whole conflict which is disingenuous extremely and becomes nothing more than pro-US propaganda.  US, surely known for its antiwar stances right?  while its weapon contractors make billions. and you say the US has no involvement?  give me a fucking break

i see people doing this a lot, being on "the side of the ukrainians" and instead actually being on "the side of the ukrainian government" which was and is a far right dictatorship, which is drafting its citizens to fight in this war because they dont want to actually fight. being "on the side of the ukrainian people by shipping them weapons" when those weapons prolong the war and result in more ukrainians dead, a quick defeat of the Ukrainian government by Russia, without Ukraine getting US weapons aid, would have saved more Ukrainian lives.  but this isn't ideologically convenient for you, you'd prefer a long drawn out war for the ideology of nationalism

everyone would be better off and far less dead if ukraine gov met putin's terms of surrender set at the beginning of the war but people think nationalistic jingoism is the answer.  whose side do you think you are on wanting the war to continue with more and more US weaponry?

war is not the answer, and being on any "side" except the ukrainian people, who are objectively harmed by the war, is contrary to the true side you should be on, wanting the war to end.  "but i do want it to end" you say, then why do you support US weapons aid and support trying to have ukraine "win" it?  its too late, ukraine is destroyed at this point, they lost, and it's the US's fault.  a true win would be a quick loss to Russia in the beginning.  far more would be alive.

Edited January 11 by zlemflolia

[custom knob]

I agree, I think the Palestinians and hamas should take that approach too, there’d be far more people alive now if they simply submitted to the Israelis 

This principle can be extended to all conflicts - if the invading force is more powerful than you and more likely to win - just roll over and take it so you can save some lives - clearly the only humane option

 

[zlemflolia]

4 minutes ago, custom knob said:

I agree, I think the Palestinians and hamas should take that approach too, there’d be far more people alive now if they simply submitted to the Israelis 

This principle can be extended to all conflicts - if the invading force is more powerful than you and more likely to win - just roll over and take it so you can save some lives - clearly the only humane option

 

palestine is being actively occupied by israel who is funded and armed by the US, explain how this is even remotely a similar scenario

[ignatius]

2 hours ago, custom knob said:

I agree, I think the Palestinians and hamas should take that approach too, there’d be far more people alive now if they simply submitted to the Israelis 

This principle can be extended to all conflicts - if the invading force is more powerful than you and more likely to win - just roll over and take it so you can save some lives - clearly the only humane option

 

also, slaves should never revolt, oppressed peoples should never protest.

edit: 

@zlemflolia  I'm pretty sure CustomKnob was being sarcastic.. at least that's how i took it. in case it wasn't obvious i'm also being sarcastic

Edited January 11 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

bad faith argument, anyway apply that to the people of DPR/LPR that Ukraine was perpetrating civil war against in violation of peace treaties, one of Russia's stated reasons for invading to begin with

[decibal cooper]

12 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

??? what is your point. yes, nato was primarily strategized as a defense against russia. the context of that involves them siding with hitler and trying to conquer the world in world war 2, then shortly thereafter developing insane nukes

putin invaded ukraine. usa didn't make him do that. are you arguing it was a reasonable response to usa? this argument doesn't even make sense. if zelensky invaded russia then maybe you could try a proxy argument but here it's just vague and refers to nothing. walk me through the logic again.

3. putin had no choice but to invade ukraine and fire missles blindly into civilian areas literally thousands of times

Does not seem like there is any daylight for either of us to convince the other, so it maybe best to agree to disagree, but since you quoted me (without even bestowing at the very least a Picard facepalm, let alone a like or Farnsworth on my post - HOW DARE YOU MY CURRENT WATMM RANK IS 'RISING STAR' AND I HAVE ONLY 130 POINTS UNTIL MY NEXT RANK ON THE IDM FORUM SHOW SOME DECORUM), I do feel compelled to respond.

This is only my opinion, and I do acknowledge that I can be wrong, but I believe that Russia was provoked to invade. I do not condone the invasion, I think it bad, but I think if you practice Robert McNamara's advice from the great documentary The Fog of War, that you should understand the principle of empathizing with one's enemy, to try and see the world from the enemy's point of view so that you can understand their actions (he talks about how this averted the potential for nuclear annihilation during Cuban Missile Crisis).

As you mention above, Russia was invaded via its Western border by Nazis. They were invaded through this border earlier in history by Napoleonic France. Millions dead from Nazis, and something like 200,000 dead from France. Russia will not tolerate adversaries setting up military installations on its borders. I honestly believe that the Russian invasion was meant to compel Western forces to negotiate, and that the peace talks in Istanbul in 2022 was the product of that. The West chose to continue the war and balked at diplomacy, and here we are.

By the way, you mention how Russia is targeting civilians. Look at the numbers compared with how Israel is doing the same thing (with unconditional US support). In this respect, compared with the Israelis, Russia is playing tee-ball and Israel is in the major leagues, the major leagues of dropping 2000lb bombs on civilian infrastructure and people themselves. They have murdered so many journalists who try to tell the story of what is happening there, destroy hospitals. So many stories of children getting struck, surviving, and having to have amputations performed on them without anesthetic because there are so little supplies in field hospitals and the like. Top officials in their government admitting that they want to starve the population as a way to gain leverage for hostage releases. Israel goes on trial today at ICJ for charges of attempted genocide. America is doing everything it can to aid and abet this, is doing so little to stop it (and is making a wider regional war more likely each day), and this is who you think is the 'Good Guy', just backing its allies like a real mensch in Ukraine. Come on man.

I really do hope a diplomatic solution is coming soon in Ukraine. Republicans in America are playing politics to tie continued Ukraine funding to changes in US Southern border policy, and it seems like they are not budging: more US money for Ukraine is unlikely in the immediate future. Other European countries SEEM at least to be following suit, like Italy's defense minister.

The longer this war goes on, the more Ukrainians will be killed and the more their country will be destroyed through warfare, and for that reason I believe that a diplomatic solution to this conflict is the best option for Ukraine. This war has been a disaster for that country, and I hope peace comes soon.

[auxien]

preservation of human life is not paramount in all choices, nor even close to the only thing that matters. any knowledge of human affairs at all demonstrates this over and over again. any experience as a human should lead one to these conclusions as well. 

Edited January 11 by auxien

[may be rude]

16 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

I believe that Russia was provoked to invade

this is insane.  

16 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

As you mention above, Russia was invaded via its Western border by Nazis.

no, i mentioned that they fought with hitler. they had a non-aggression pact and worked together as each was conquering neighbors. hitler turned on stalin later.

16 hours ago, decibal cooper said:

I hope peace comes soon

i agree

Edited January 12 by trying to be less rude

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, trying to be less rude said:

this is insane.  

no, i mentioned that they fought with hitler. they had a non-aggression pact and worked together as each was conquering neighbors. hitler turned on stalin later.

i agree

just cuz modern russia is invading ukraine doesnt mean you have to revise history to create narratives of russia being pro-hitler or something.  fought with hitler?  sources please.  they had a non-aggression pact because stalin was left with no choices after UK+France refused an anti-fascist pact with them

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2018.1458043

"ussr fought with hitler" borders on nazi apologism considering the nazis killed more soviets than ANY other group of people.

your writings piss me off because youre so anxious to stay on some side that you lie and write falsities

even extremely anti-soviet biased wikipedia says the same thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

The treaty was the culmination of negotiations for an economic agreement between the USSR and Nazi Germany which the Soviets used to obtain a political agreement – see Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941) § 1938–1939 deal discussions. On 22 August, Ribbentrop flew to Moscow to finalize the treaty, which the Soviets had sought before with Britain and France

USSR was not exactly in a position to be invaded and needed time for rapid industrialization in deeper territories to manufacture equipment in preparation for WW2.  tell me, did UK + France shut down economic relations with Germany in that time period that USSR maintained them?

 

Meanwhile, Churchill on Hitler:

Churchill went on to conclude: “We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilisation will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation. . . . [History] is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim, and even frightful methods but who, nevertheless, when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind. So may it be with Hitler.”Churchill concluded his essay on a hopeful note: “We may yet to live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age.” ((Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”, 173-174.))

 

As opposed to Stalin...

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

 

So cut the shit, two wrongs don't make a right and your historical revisionism in an attempt to be disproportionately anti-Russian simply result in you writing outright Nazi apologism.

Edited January 12 by zlemflolia

[ignatius]

1 hour ago, zlemflolia said:

"ussr fought with hitler" borders on nazi apologism considering the nazis killed more soviets than ANY other group of people

So true. I think the nazis killed even more Soviet’s than Stalin did.

but seriously I think ussr suffered around 20 million deaths during ww2

and yes absolutely accurate about the non aggression pact. The early days of the nazis on the world stage were full of appeasement and countries stalling while they built their war machines preparing for the fight. That history is still being uncovered in some places

the date of that Churchill quote is relevant. When did he say that? 

Edited January 12 by ignatius

[zlemflolia]

15 minutes ago, ignatius said:

So true. I think the nazis killed even more Soviet’s than Stalin did.

but seriously I think ussr suffered around 20 million deaths during ww2

and yes absolutely accurate about the non aggression pact. The early days of the nazis on the world stage were full of appeasement and countries stalling while they built their war machines preparing for the fight. That history is still being uncovered in some places

the date of that Churchill quote is relevant. When did he say that? 

1935

https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchill-and-the-gathering-storm.html

and i would hardly call it relevant.  hitler was a fascist anti-semite from the very beginning

and stalin's quote is even earlier, 1931

Edited January 12 by zlemflolia

[chenGOD]

On 1/11/2024 at 12:31 AM, decibal cooper said:

I wonder if BRICS will be successful

When China and India stop attacking each other across the border, when Iran and Saudi Arabia actually start real engagement, when Russia stops seeing the BRICS group as more than a way to attain power and reduce the lesser members to vassal states, when Brazil and South Africa start seeing more revenue from its BRICS partners than the US and Europe, etc. etc. The BRICS group was set up as a trading bloc, but the cooperation among the members is so poor compared to the EU/G7/CUSMA blocs.

[ignatius]

7 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

1935

https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchill-and-the-gathering-storm.html

and i would hardly call it relevant.  hitler was a fascist anti-semite from the very beginning

and stalin's quote is even earlier, 1931

It just sounds like he was saying “who knows what will actually happen” based on previous experience of someone saying one thing and doing another. That’s a thing that happens in history. Context is important. “This person seems terrible but we don’t know who he really is yet or how things will pan out” is a common thing to say. But yes indeed there were plenty of people wary of hitler who had a better sense of smell for who he was. It took some people a little longer to catch the foul wind. 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, ignatius said:

It just sounds like he was saying “who knows what will actually happen” based on previous experience of someone saying one thing and doing another. That’s a thing that happens in history. Context is important. “This person seems terrible but we don’t know who he really is yet or how things will pan out” is a common thing to say. But yes indeed there were plenty of people wary of hitler who had a better sense of smell for who he was. It took some people a little longer to catch the foul wind. 

Of course he was hedging a little, but by 1938 Churchill was one of the most strident voices against appeasing Germany. 

[may be rude]

sounds like we agree that stalin signed a non-aggression pact with the nazis, and they were both conquering countries at the same time while helping each other and coordinating.

 

sure, later hitler turned on stalin and did tremendous harm to russian people. both things are true. 

 

russia's aggression in ww2 and soon-following acquisition of nukes is the backdrop for nato

 

and look... putin is invading neighboring countries. nato is not without justification. what would russia do if there were no nato?

 

the gymnastics going on in this thread are really amazing

 

nazi apologist? i'm being trolled. by putin apologists. 

 

zlemflolia you're a fucking propagandist. 

Edited January 12 by trying to be less rude

[zero]

yeah...a lot of bullshit wafting around in this thread lately.

@decibal cooper it seems to me a lot of the questions you ask in here could be answered by seeking out accurate information on other sites where legit facts on the Russia/Ukraine conflict are presented? I'm not sure what you're getting at with all the - should I believe this, or should I believe that - type of questions you posit in here. after all, there is either fact, or there is bullshit. we all need to do a much better job on being able to determine which is which, I agree...but asking an IDM forum is probably not the best place to turn to if you really are serious on finding out some answers to questions you post. there is truth out there, it is not all fake news. tbh, it sorta comes off as you're pushing the bullshit narrative - aka whatever tf the Ruskie regime decides to pull out of their ass.

here's an interesting site I found from the Canadian govt, where they are making a worthy attempt at countering the Ruskie BS with actual facts:

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/ukraine-fact-fait.aspx?lang=eng

[decibal cooper]

Okay, Russia bad, US good - got it!

I am going to think about these resource you post and reflect upon current affair - I will no longer post in thread

@zero and @trying to be less rudethank you for explaining your rationale for why you support this war against the Russian aggressors I apprecitteeresdrg fddy fdsy f yuout dsdr r your timemmememememmememeemmememem

Spoiler

joking aside I do appreciate your guys responses - I like following current affairs and in my posts on this thread I have laid out my thoughts and sincere opinions on the matter - and in all of my posts I am calling for diplomatic solution and end of war and I think that this is all that matters. I am not trying to make light of the fact that it is very difficult to navigate the way that information about global affairs is disseminated to the public across the world.

 

[ignatius]

9 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Of course he was hedging a little, but by 1938 Churchill was one of the most strident voices against appeasing Germany. 

yeah. totally. it's why i asked about the date of the quote. early on a picture of hitler wasn't fixed in everyone's minds either because they just didn't know enough or weren't paying attention. it was a different world. they couldn't tap into the internet and hear/read everything hitler ever said. but whatever they knew i think they thought he sucked but how much does he suck? we'll see.. is he all talk or is he going to do some shit? it soon became obvious how bad he sucked and most people got on the right side of that.. eventually. america didn't for a while. there were complex reasons for the general population to be wary of another European war. but eventually FDR was able to convince people with some help from the japanese. 

[zlemflolia]

6 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

sounds like we agree that stalin signed a non-aggression pact with the nazis

so did france and england, mister big brain

Edited January 12 by zlemflolia

[ignatius]

2 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:

so did france and england, mister big brain

there's some recent history about Chamberlain going for appeasement so the british could have time to build up an army and get ready for the fight.. but i've only seen that in one place.. essentially saying he wanted to buy time for england and a year would make all the difference. i'm sure there's still a debate about all that though.

one of the hilarious things about the french is after ww1 they built the 'maginot line' along the entire border w/germany. it was sophisticated and supposed to be tough to defeat but was weak in places and so the nazis just went around the difficult parts and went through the weaker sections and the maginot line was essentially useless. 

Quote

The line has since become a metaphor for expensive efforts that offer a false sense of security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line