You understand exactly what I said. And you also know that without Western help this war would've ended a long time ago.

the "perspective" that both crimea and donbas are ukrainian is something that was an internationally accepted agreement. russia itself REPEATEDLY acknowledged that territorial integrity in various different treaties - many of which signed by or in the name of pootin. there is something as internationally recognised borders. are you genuinely not aware of that, or are you just doing some flawed historic revisionism routine in yet another feeble attempt to justify russia's warmongering?!



you (unsurprisingly) COMPLETELY whooooshed the point there. yes, we can reasonably argue that the treaty put post WWI germany into a situation (economically, politically, ideologically, territorially...) in which a rise of a radical party looking to avenge or rectify the "injustices" put upon it was foreseeable, or likely at the very least, and that it certainly "helped" pave the way into yet another war. we also know for certain that in that war, allied forces committed many war crimes. my point is not that those things are simply not true, and that the allies were angel. my point is that anyone who looks at WWII and declares "both sides were wrong", and leaves it at that, is doing a massive favour to nazi germany, which systematically murdered millions of people, and forcefully annexed / invaded one european country after the other, clearly was the aggressor, and clearly bears the main responsibility and guilt of that war.

just like russia in the current conflict...

What you said is contrary the fact. Ukraine sanknthe flagship of the Russian fleet. Without even having a navy at its disposal.

That is also besides the point. Because the west did and continue to support Ukraine. And the war (I note that you choose the correct word "war" and not special military operation, at least we can agree on something and you can accept some part of reality)
The war continues.
And Russia or Ukraine have failed to attain a decisive miltary victory.
Obviously not satisfying for Ukraine but utterly embarrassing for Russias miltary.

But why can't you accept the fact? Ukraine destroyed the Moskva.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Sep 8 2023 12:44pm

I agree.
Just look at Paristan at the moment.

What are you trying to achieve? Everybody here already admitted that the ship was sunk like a year ago, but it was only possible with help of someone proving Ukraine with the intel needed for such a strike.

I said war, Russia call it SMO because they haven't fully mobilized and don't want to apparently. But again, you know that.

I


You had ww3 when Moskva went kaput ?

So -No-. Ww3" is such an horrible bad faith excuse: Musk gave the prioty to war ships over ukrainian cities, and ruscists are celebrating.

stop lying, the very post you quote there you see me acknowledging that ukraine indeed killed innocent civilians in donbas - if you could read properly.
what i AM ignoring - or rather debunking - is your extremely biased, war-apologist framing of how that happened.

the truth is:

- russia instigated the conflict in donbas by sending countless unmarked troops, funding separatists, and forcefully occupying administrative buildings. only then did the ukrainians reply with force. they didn't just randomly decide to bomb parts of their own country for shits and giggles...

- even IF some brainwashed pootlicker bought into the idiotic narrative that ukrainians killed civilians in donbas for absolutely no good reason, that STILL doesn't give russia the right to INVADE THE WHOLE COUNTRY, COMPLETELY DESTROY THE REGIONS IN QUESTION, AND MURDER INFINITELY MORE CIVILIANS THAN EVEN THEIR WILDEST PROPAGANDA CLAIMS ACCUSED THE UKRAINIANS OF. that narrative doesn't even begin to make any sense - even if you're dumb enough to believe it in the first place.

- russia has used that same tactic over and over in order to convince gullible morons that their invasion was somehow justified. seriously, only a complete fool would take that seriously and use it for a dishonest bothsidesism.

This post was edited by fender on Sep 8 2023 12:58pm

The key difference here is that Russia is NOT systematically committing genocide. To believe so is to be completely ignorant of the truth.

Where are the Russian concentration death camps for Ukrainians? Where are the gas chambers? Where are the furnaces? Where are the mountains of disposed corpses of children, women, and innocent civilians? They don't exist because there isn't any.

Both sides committed war crimes, much like the Allies vs. Axis, where there was even large scale war crimes committed by the Allies such as the firebombing of Dresden & wantonly burning people alive with flamethrowers. But in the case of WW2 only one side was committing open genocide. Russia is NOT committing genocide and to say that they are is extremely irresponsible and devoid of any truth whatsoever.

This post was edited by El1te on Sep 8 2023 12:59pm

The whole place is being overrun by rabid violent Algerian kids

And France can't do a damn thing because they are second generation, born in France

France played themselves

no, the russians are, to my knowledge, NOT committing industrial genocide (you should definitely look into their resettlement / discrimination / ethnic "re-structuring" of crimea though, their efforts to make it appear more russian) - but they repeatedly annex territory / invade their neighbours / murdering thousands of innocent civilians in the process. they are clearly the aggressors, they are the ones who started this war, they are the ones who try to conquer territory that isn't theirs - as per their own admission btw...

they also don't speak german, their capital is not berlin, they don't use 1930's technology (for the most part) for their war... any other obvious differences you want to point out in order to DEFLECT FROM THE STRIKING SIMILARITIES?

This post was edited by fender on Sep 8 2023 01:04pm