1) That’s precisely what was said. Could you elaborate why you consider this a lie? Putin is not denying that Hitler has started the war, his argument is that he was forced to start it with Poland as his demands were not met which is factual and not a lie.

2) You said this is a lie, I explained to you why this is not. Whether this is a “valid” casus belli to invade a country is not part of whether this is a lie or not. Do not mix these terms.

If history teaches us anything - this is precisely why NATO has invaded several countries over the past 30 years - ergo legitimizing this casus belli.

3) the link you posted says:
. Shall we strike this one out for you as well?

5) Legal requirement to remove a president after impeachment procedures have been done is 3/4rd which in a Rada of 450 means 337 votes - which was not achieved. Once again - please provide evidence that acting democratic president was removed lawfully if you believe this was not coup d etat. Happy to read your links and arguments.

6) You don’t get to change your arguments - you get to concede an argument that you made erroneously. So 6) is out. We can have a separate one about Donbass where I’m happy to engage.

We are slowly getting there.

Perhaps strictly factual but not really to the point. Hitlers demands for Poland to cede territory and corridors would have kept going until they lost all sovereignty and were German vassals (ironically, as they are now). Whatever means Poland wants to view the diplomatic dance around the invasion, its clear enough that Germany wanted to subjugate Poland by either diplomacy or force, and Poland opted to refuse appeasement and seek an alliance with the UK and France- while Hitler did the same with the soviets and slovaks. I mean overall Hitlers approach to the war was either Poland surrenders or is defeated

This is factually correct. In the grand scheme of things, Poland of 1939 was doomed as it did not enter a defensive alliance with USSR (for reasons outlined above) and security guarantees with France and UK proved to be worthless. So whether they conceded Danzig Corridor or not - probably did not matter as Lebensraum doctrine was quite clear about Hitlers plans for East of Europe. He would have taken over Poland diplomatically or militarily to prepare his invasion of USSR .

I’m really arguing semantics here against somebody who seems to have not actually watched the interview or is just outraged at Putin - which is their right to be outraged. I’m here to debate and form arguments and counterarguments.

This post was edited by Malopox on Feb 12 2024 12:44am

1) Enough was said by multiple people. If you think that a different interpretation of history is not a lie, it's up to you. You're arguing about semantics, but lack of options in his quest to dominate europe in the world is not "by force". There is no military pressure poland exerted, so forced is even wrong semantically.
2) It shows that he is trying to find an excuse for his invasion. "let me punch in your face with this hammer because there is a fly on your nose" Your argument: Proof him wrong there was no fly on your face, oh you can't? Lack of proportionality makes his statement a lie.
3) "To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."
5) It requires a majority of constitutional composition, would you please state by which ukrainian law you think it's 3/4 and not 2/3?
6) yeah please engage in donbas my proud warrior

offtopic: Are you a russian living in the west? It would explain alot.

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Feb 12 2024 01:35am

1) Once again, you came in arguing that historical facts are a lie. World war two could have started with Austria if they refused Anschluss, or Czechoslovakia if Allies would have intervened, or with USSR if Poland would have submitted to Germany. Instead it started with Poland.

2) This is indeed what he is doing, justifying his invasion. There is no lie here as Ukraine does have a Nazi problem. The question you should have asked is whether this was a just cause to invade and then we would have had a different debate with different arguments.

3) Once again, if you read your link, it mentions enlargement of forces in East Germany which is technically still correct as there were no forces stationed in East Germany at the time of the interview. The interview then goes on with Gorbachev clearly saying his opinion about enlargement eastward.

If we take a hypothetical here to turn the tables, let’s imagine Ireland (which is not part of NATO) joins a military alliance with China and stations warheads, long distance missiles and submarines. Would you say NATO countries be amused and would not act?

5) Article 111 of Ukranian Constitution clearly says “three fourth of constitutional compositon to remove a president”:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/11/08/constitution_14.pdf

6) thanks for conceding. Four to go.

Going ad hominem doesn’t help your debating position. You are free to concede if you are not willing to proceed.

Is there any revolution in history that didn't give itself """legal authority""" after a coup d'etat? Holding a formal vote to legitimize the power they seized by force of arms, not a democratic vote.

The facts of the Maidan are:

• It overthrew a legitimate, democratically elected administration, not a dictator or monarch or foreign oppressor. thats a stark contrast to other revolutions like America, the Arab Spring, Iran, etc
  
• It violated the will of the Ukrainian voting public, who had ample legal means to effect change at the ballot box and who chose their country's pro-Russian policy. If the people wanted the EU compact they could simply have voted in a pro-EU regime.
  
• It replaced a 'mostly sovereign and independent' government within Russia's sphere of influence with a puppet regime fully dependent on and micromanaged by western powers, to the point a native Ukrainian oligarch friendly with Russia was replaced with a former CIA head. Not even hiding it.
  
• The critical actors in the streets who seized control were rabid, overt Nazis, and without them it probably would have fizzled out as less radical normies went home
  
• The post Maidan regime in Kyiv has never held any control over the separatist regions for even one day. Zelensky lays claim to territory that was never conquered by the revolutionaries.
  

Imagine the absurdity of saying that a junta giving themselves a formal vote in a captive parliament at gunpoint makes them the legitimate democratic representatives of the people. Thats like saying Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, I mean he did hold elections and got 100% of the vote each time

1) Nazi Germany had the free choice to invade poland without consequences for them. Therefor it wasn't forced. Forced is a lie
2) He lies about his intention. The proof is that russias actions are not in line with the reasoning. There is no other way to evaluate his intentions.
3) No contracts, no promises, case closed. Rest is just blabla. Free countries made a choice russia isn't happy with.
5) I think you have reading problems. 75% of the Parliament needed to be present (there were) and there needed to be a two thirds majority. Both conditions were met.

Chosing to live in the west and defending russia is hypocrisy at its finest.

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Feb 12 2024 03:43am

We are getting somewhere!

1) Germany did not have a “free choice to invade Poland without consequences”. This is historic revisionism on your part.

Poland had bilateral security arrangements with UK and France which did not save Poland, but has dragged UK and France into a direct conflict with Nazi Germany, thereby starting World War Two. If, hypothetically, Poland would have played along with Nazi Germany the same way they did in Czechoslovakia, Germans would have started the war elsewhere. Because of Polish (stoic) refusal in the face of overwhelming odds, Hitler was forced to start his military conquest with them. How else would you define it?

To add: Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 it did so for only one reason - Germany had invaded Poland, and Britain had guaranteed to support her ally, like it had supported Belgium in WW1. Britain did not declare war on USSR by the way, but instead supported the decision of the Red Army to enter Poland.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2639201

2) Could you please define what do you mean “he lies about his intention”. If you refer to Istanbul agreement - Ukraine has conceded this point in negotiations and has agreed to implement necessary laws banning Nazism.

3) As mentioned before - verbal agreements are also binding whether you like it or not and are enforceable in court.

Countries are free to make decisions, that much is true, but their decisions have consequences. Security concerns are valid concerns and we have in the past encountered eg Cuban crisis which was a free choice of Cubans - challenged by United States which felt threatened.

Russians have consistently said that Ukraine cannot join an openly hostile to Russia military alliance and this will have consequences.

5) Please read the document. You can find it in Ukranian if you can read Ukranian.

To remove the president - he had to be impeached first - which did not happen.

Then, once impeachment procedure would have passed - three fourth of Rada had to assent to that decision which did not happen either - ergo his removal was unconstitutional.


We can also invoke the argument whether members of Rada were coerced to vote to on unconstitutional measures like Goomshill did above, but that is an overkill.

Just to add, invoking “No True Scotsman” fallacy is bad sport and usually means bad debating ability.

1) You're talking like Hitlers military conquest is inevitable. You're arguing that Nazi Germany, just like Russia, had no other choice but to attack and it's Polands/Ukrainians choice not to defend themselves. Putin and Hitler were free to give up their expansionist plans, without having to fear an immediate risk due to their military strength. Therefor nobody has forced them.
2) The Intentions to denazify Ukraine do not correlate with his actions. Russia bombs civilians and their infrastructure, deports children and tortures civilians. Therefor i conclude it's a lie.
3) Cuba was never invaded by USA. Ukr didn't join Nato and no process of them joining has ever started. excuses all over. Also what's the reason for invasion now? denazify or nato? Or just his urge for power?
5) in May 2014 russia recognizing the newly elected Ukrainian government as the rightful leadership of the country. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA4M05420140524/

"Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada №764-VII of 23.02.2014 «On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine»
Given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:
To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption."