d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1289828992900290129024528Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 4,145
Joined: Jun 30 2022
Gold: 4.91
Warn: 20%
Jun 2 2023 04:32pm
The Russians are the pinnacle of creation. For them, the great struggle is won. They have evolved a society which knows no stress or angst. Who are we to judge them? We Americans who have failed, or the Europeans, on the road to ruin in their turn? And why? Because we sought answers to questions that a Russian wouldn't even bother to ask! We see a culture that is strong and despise it as crude. SMH.
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jun 2 2023 04:49pm
The joke is: 2 russians soldiers steal a car in Bakhmut and one of them says "it's mine!"
Member
Posts: 48,904
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,011.77
Jun 2 2023 05:43pm
Quote (Djunior @ Jun 2 2023 03:43pm)
Completely dishonest

1) It never was an attempted genocide. Fuck off with this complete and utter BS

2) Pointing out that weapons deliveries have escalated the conflict is 100% correct.

3) I agree readily that the initial assault failed. I already agreed on that how many times? On the other hand YOU are the one that claimed Russia withdrew from Bakhmut (BS) and judging by this post you slipped up in your previous post and now you're completely losing your shit. Sad

4) Bakhmut swallowed up brigade after brigade and Ukraine is running out of troops. Deal with it


What's weird about the US-based Russian apologists is they don't actually believe the Russian talking points for the war. They mention the topics popular among anti-American Westerners, but they don't talk about what the Russians actually say is their reasons for invading. And the propaganda from Russia about their logic for invading is propaganda. So people like djunior are at least a couple levels removed from the actual reasons Russia pursued a genocidal war against Ukraine.

For instance, point to me how many times Putin named NATO expansion a major reason for his invasion in his last number of speeches. It's a side issue. His worldview about Russia is not determined by the nations that joined NATO in the past couple decades.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 2 2023 05:51pm
Member
Posts: 4,778
Joined: Feb 5 2022
Gold: 11.11
Jun 2 2023 07:29pm
European soil was invaded. How come europe is not defending her soil? That's right because of us and we blew up your pipeline! now buy our gas and f-35s
Member
Posts: 34,825
Joined: May 19 2004
Gold: 262.00
Warn: 60%
Jun 2 2023 07:30pm
Quote (zorzin @ Jun 2 2023 09:29pm)
European soil was invaded. How come europe is not defending her soil? That's right because of us and we blew up your pipeline! now buy our gas and f-35s

Can't 'cause Biden shut down our pipelines due to his corruption.
Member
Posts: 46,809
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,159.69
Jun 2 2023 08:02pm
Quote (IceMage @ Jun 2 2023 06:43pm)
What's weird about the US-based Russian apologists is they don't actually believe the Russian talking points for the war. They mention the topics popular among anti-American Westerners, but they don't talk about what the Russians actually say is their reasons for invading. And the propaganda from Russia about their logic for invading is propaganda. So people like djunior are at least a couple levels removed from the actual reasons Russia pursued a genocidal war against Ukraine.

For instance, point to me how many times Putin named NATO expansion a major reason for his invasion in his last number of speeches. It's a side issue. His worldview about Russia is not determined by the nations that joined NATO in the past couple decades.


NATO expansion is just shorthand for checking spheres of influence. Russia has every reason to want to push back against the steady encroachment on their sphere. It doesn't bother them when countries that were already firmly in the western sphere formalize their NATO bond, they were already outside Russia's control. But Ukraine is Russia's back yard. What other reason does Putin need? Are we to believe he's just some cruel ogre who wants to grind their bones to make his bread? He didn't go through with a costly invasion on a whim, without reason or calculation.
When he starts talking about denazification or attacks on the ethnic Russians in the separatist regions- that's when he's just giving propaganda excuses. Its not that they are false or made-up, its that Putin and Russia's national self-interest have no reason to care about them. It doesn't affect Russia if nazis -exist- in Ukraine. Its not a reason to invade, but an excuse after the fact. It is however absolutely a reason for me to oppose arming said Nazis, one of those quirks of not seeing every geopolitical struggle as an absolute dichotomy and needing to choose sides.
Member
Posts: 52,473
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,404.67
Jun 2 2023 09:58pm
Quote (Goomshill @ 3 Jun 2023 04:02)
NATO expansion is just shorthand for checking spheres of influence. Russia has every reason to want to push back against the steady encroachment on their sphere. It doesn't bother them when countries that were already firmly in the western sphere formalize their NATO bond, they were already outside Russia's control. But Ukraine is Russia's back yard. What other reason does Putin need? Are we to believe he's just some cruel ogre who wants to grind their bones to make his bread? He didn't go through with a costly invasion on a whim, without reason or calculation.
When he starts talking about denazification or attacks on the ethnic Russians in the separatist regions- that's when he's just giving propaganda excuses. Its not that they are false or made-up, its that Putin and Russia's national self-interest have no reason to care about them. It doesn't affect Russia if nazis -exist- in Ukraine. Its not a reason to invade, but an excuse after the fact. It is however absolutely a reason for me to oppose arming said Nazis, one of those quirks of not seeing every geopolitical struggle as an absolute dichotomy and needing to choose sides.


The big question is: should the rest of the civilized world accept it when a backward power stuck in 19th-century imperialist thinking tries to expand or maintain its sphere of influence with sheer force (instead of persuasion and offering a symbiotic relationship)?

Russia is like a scorned brute who shows up at his ex's house and tries to beat her up until she submits and agrees to "be with him" again. And that's not just a recent type of behavior Russia has adopted in response to some sort of "geopolitical aggression by the West", that's how they've treated their neighbors for literally centuries. None other than Lenin himself called the Russian Empire a "prison of nations". And the Soviet Union seamlessly continued the tradition. Time and time again, they sent their tanks to violently quell any protests or democratic movements in the Eastern bloc. As soon as Gorbachev renounced the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed within 2 years.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 2 2023 10:02pm
Member
Posts: 4,145
Joined: Jun 30 2022
Gold: 4.91
Warn: 20%
Jun 3 2023 12:00am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 3 2023 12:58am)
The big question is: should the rest of the civilized world accept it when a backward power stuck in 19th-century imperialist thinking tries to expand or maintain its sphere of influence with sheer force (instead of persuasion and offering a symbiotic relationship)?

Russia is like a scorned brute who shows up at his ex's house and tries to beat her up until she submits and agrees to "be with him" again. And that's not just a recent type of behavior Russia has adopted in response to some sort of "geopolitical aggression by the West", that's how they've treated their neighbors for literally centuries. None other than Lenin himself called the Russian Empire a "prison of nations". And the Soviet Union seamlessly continued the tradition. Time and time again, they sent their tanks to violently quell any protests or democratic movements in the Eastern bloc. As soon as Gorbachev renounced the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed within 2 years.


No one has to accept anything, but diplomacy is sort of important is it not? If the West is so civilized and pure, perhaps we should be the ones to make overtures of peace to the mindless barbarian hordes? Maybe some of our politicians who all magically leave office as millionaires can earn their keep for once? How many diplomats does the combined west have all together? The best they can muster is "Russia must leave!"

The "leader of the free world" regularly enforces its will through sheer force, as well as a number of other unsavory practices, so while that may be an accurate description it isn't exactly unique. Europe is essentially just a US colony at this point, that is why you all have nothing left in terms of real military capability, if the US disappeared tomorrow you would probably all be at eachothers throats again and scrambling to build an actual military.

Lol @ the scorned brute comparison, reminds me of the US blowing up German energy infrastructure to ensure they remain obedient. Before stealing their industry and gouging them on their new and efficient supply of transatlantic LNG.

Yes Russia was a bit touchy after World War 2, I wonder why that could be, you talk about how these countries have reason to fear Russian aggression, well how about the reverse? Did they have any reason to fear western powers? And before that Europeans were killing eachother over ground every other day, it wasn't some unique Russian trait lol.
Member
Posts: 46,809
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,159.69
Jun 3 2023 12:22am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 2 2023 10:58pm)
The big question is: should the rest of the civilized world accept it when a backward power stuck in 19th-century imperialist thinking tries to expand or maintain its sphere of influence with sheer force (instead of persuasion and offering a symbiotic relationship)?

Russia is like a scorned brute who shows up at his ex's house and tries to beat her up until she submits and agrees to "be with him" again. And that's not just a recent type of behavior Russia has adopted in response to some sort of "geopolitical aggression by the West", that's how they've treated their neighbors for literally centuries. None other than Lenin himself called the Russian Empire a "prison of nations". And the Soviet Union seamlessly continued the tradition. Time and time again, they sent their tanks to violently quell any protests or democratic movements in the Eastern bloc. As soon as Gorbachev renounced the Brezhnev Doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed within 2 years.


I mean, why should Russia trying to hold onto its sphere of influence by naked force and full blown invasion be any more or less legitimate than the west trying to expand its sphere of influence by color revolutions and arms funneling?
Of course, that begs the question of what legitimacy means and who determines it, and the simple fact is that might makes right and Russia's success is that measure. Same reason the 'civilized world's ICC will lock up leaders of nations too weak to resist it but be impotent to world powers

Its not like the soft power of the US offering such 'relationships' isn't backed up the implicit threat that when push comes to shove, we're all too happy to turn every poor country into a devastated warzone, whether by our hand or by our proxy wars.
Member
Posts: 43,376
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Gold: 49,930.00
Jun 3 2023 01:09am
Quote (Goomshill @ 3 Jun 2023 14:22)
I mean, why should Russia trying to hold onto its sphere of influence by naked force and full blown invasion be any more or less legitimate than the west trying to expand its sphere of influence by color revolutions and arms funneling?
Of course, that begs the question of what legitimacy means and who determines it, and the simple fact is that might makes right and Russia's success is that measure. Same reason the 'civilized world's ICC will lock up leaders of nations too weak to resist it but be impotent to world powers

Its not like the soft power of the US offering such 'relationships' isn't backed up the implicit threat that when push comes to shove, we're all too happy to turn every poor country into a devastated warzone, whether by our hand or by our proxy wars.


I also think what we consider as the civilized world and the amount of votes being cast against the aggressive belligerent are merely a show of fear towards the current strongest economical and military hegemon.

Any dissent towards the current super powers, G7, will have a rather disastrous effect on their government and population. Serbia is a prime example now for not toeing the line.

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Jun 3 2023 01:35am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1289828992900290129024528Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll