Kieselguhr [none/use name]

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

I’m sorry, are you the same person I’ve been talking to? Because it seems like you haven’t actually read anything I’ve written.

The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender.

Western politicians actively sabotaged peace talks. Read previous comments for sources.

They are gaining ground every day

This has no basis in reality. Even overly optimistic western sources have admitted the failure of the spring counteroffensive.

have all the time they want

How can you be this wrong? They have limited manpower and more and more soldiers die every day. Every week spent warring is a huge burden on their economy.

I’m not gonna answer you again since you are completely out of touch with reality. Even prowar western journalists are more careful with their wording.

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

Yeah no-one is against a peace deal at this point

Great, call a ceasefire now.

Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.

So you are against a peace deal? You do know that the fabled ukrainian counteroffensive has failed completely? How many more regular ukrainians should die in hopeless counteroffensives?

Btw it seems like you don’t know what totalitarian means. Actual academic historians tend to avoid this term since the seventies.

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · edit-2 1 year ago

You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots?

The counteroffensive failed spectacularly, even western sources admit this.

How many more people you want to send in the meat grinder?

Here’s an idea: call a ceasefire and let the diplomats negotiate, and let’s see what happens. Let’s see what actual ukrainians want after a few months of negotiation. Maybe Boris Johnson should fuck off. At least people are not dying until then. Outlandish, I know.

And who is feeding the far left with this crap?

Now this is qanon level conspiracy theory. I am against war between capitalist nations in general. On one side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country, and on the other side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country.

Since I live in a NATO country I criticise NATO more, since they are the ruling class above me and there’s enough criticism of Putin around here anyway.

As far as deals go, US/Ukraine isn’t trustworthy either. The Minsk agreement was bullshit. What happened to nord stream btw?

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

Surely you can’t be this gullible

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

bollocks

I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you’ll read western mainstream narratives more critically.

How funny is this bit though?

"The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”

Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow."

They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

the Russo-Georgian war imperialism

Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.

They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.

“From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured”

Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it’s less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.

If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.

“supporting or refusing to criticize” This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · edit-2 1 year ago

Doesn’t mean it’s more than the fringe

I guess you didn’t pay attention. Whenever they post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers there’s a good chance that you will see a Totenkopf or a Black Sun badge. When western news interviews lesser known Ukrainian politicians, there’s a good chance that you will see a Bandera portrait in the background.

The rise of the ukrainian far right has been well documented in western media before the invasion. Hell, google “Western media before February of 2022”

a sovereign democracy[Citation needed]

In fact it’s neither sovereign, since the US couped Ukraine in 2014, nor it is a democracy, but an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country. The contrast with Russia lies in the absence of a single pivotal leader like Putin, and they fully adhere to Western interests.

This doesn’t make the invasion “good” as in “Aragorn is a good guy”. The NATO encroaching makes it understandable. Which is completely different from “good”. Understandable means that there is some kind of rationality at play. Which means it was probably preventable. Which means that some kind of solution is to be had. Hopefully…

spoiler

"Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, many of these same institutions had plunged into an Orwellian stampede to persuade the West that Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regiment was suddenly not a problem.

It wasn’t pretty. In 2018, The Guardian had published an article titled “Neo-Nazi Groups Recruit Britons to Fight in Ukraine,” in which the Azov Regiment was called “a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia.” Indeed, as late as November 2020, The Guardian was calling Azov a “neo-Nazi extremist movement.”

But by February 2023, The Guardian was assuring readers that Azov’s fighters “are now leading the defence of Mariupol, insisting they have shed their previous dubious politics and rapidly becoming Ukrainian heroes.” The campaign believed to have recruited British far-right activists was now a thing of the past.

The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”

Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow." link

Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net · 1 year ago

advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at.

You do realize that in order to minimize (working class) casualties some kind of peace deal needs to be signed? And in order to sign a peace deal first there needs to be a ceasefire? The sooner the ceasefire starts, the better.

Are you saying that western politicians torpedoing any kind of truce and/or peace deal is “Russian misinfo”?

spoiler

Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April [2022], according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?

JACQUES BAUD: * In fact, in my book I mention only Ukrainian sources, and Ukrainian sources said explicitly that Boris Johnson and the West basically prevented a peace agreement. So that’s not an invention from some Putin partisan here the West; that’s also what the Ukrainians felt. And you had a third occasion when that happened, that was in August, when you had this meeting between [Turkish president] Erdoğan and Zelenskyy in Lviv. And here again, Erdoğan offered his services to mediate some negotiation with the Russians, and just a few days after that Boris Johnson came unexpectedly in Kiev, and again, in a very famous press conference he said explicitly, ‘No negotiations with the Russians. We have to fight. There is no room for negotiation with the Russians.’

the cost of the war

Should we ignore the significant human and economic costs of the ongoing war and the support for the military-industrial complex? Why? Is this some kind of noble war against Sauron or what?