Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death
Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
You're viewing a single thread.
So from having had a few exchanges with pro Russian accounts on Lemmy (which seems to be infested with a few very active ones) this is a summary of their arguments:
- "Ukraine is Nazi"
- "Well far right parties got a total of under 6% of the vote, and they elected a Jewish man president"
- "yeah but Bandera and whatabout America"
- "Ukraine killed ethnic Russians"
- "A huge percentage of their population are ethnic Russians, including in government, and they are fine, and were until the Russian invasion. And now it's Russia that has killed, maimed and raped more ethnic Russians, including civilians, than Ukraine every did or even could. Including their own people thorough incompetence and corruption".
- "Yeah but Bandera, and whatabout America"
- "Ukraine is fighting because they are forced to by their colonial masters, the USA and NATO, and Ukrainians will keep dying so long as they keep being armed"
- "Actually > 90% of the population wants to continue fighting for their country back, so what you're basically saying is you think Ukrainians should be abandoned to Russian enslavement"
- "Yeah but Bandera, and whatabout America"
- "NATO and USA are colonialists and this is just more colonialism"
- "Actually both Russia and China are actual, bone fide land empires, with ethnic minorities that are forced to live like colonized people - including doing the fighting for Russia while their families back home live in misery and squalor and Putin's Mafia collect mansions, private jets and yachts"
- "Yeah but Bandera, and whatabout America"
It was an invasion. Invasions are wrong. That should be the beginning and end of the debate.
I mean, there's usually more to say than just that. I don't think no discussion is the answer.
Well then discuss.
What justifies the torture, rape, pillage, kidnapping, Russia has inflicted on Ukraine?
Mmmm... nothing. Putin is just an ultranationalist asshole on top of being a kleptocrat asshole.
Hey, I didn't say the discussion had to be long, and this is a pretty cut and dried case.
Edit: Now, consider for contrast the invasion of neutral Iceland by Britain in WWII.
I agree, but ignoring who started the war and who is the one actively invading who, while having already occupied territory from a past war, not too long ago, isn't right either. Doubting the motivations of the agressor with a past in agression is important. And yes, "TheWest"™ does it too, but Ukraine, who revolted their puppet government (as told to me by people I know from there) in 2014 and having been invaded as a result, isn't really an agressor to other countries.
I'm from northern Spain, we have had our fair share of civil revolts, the sides I support lost, and I would be SO angry with portugal or france if they had militarily intervened. Several international volunteers came to help in several of them, but volunteers != an official invasion.
I honestly feel like several commies hate "TheWest"™, and by proxy anyone that wants to be related to them so they just eat up the "There's Nazis in power in Ukraine" speech Putin used.
And yeah, context is important, this is what I know about the whole thing, told to me by my partner, whose family lives in Ukraine and lightly searched by me:
There was a revolt in Ukrained around 2013, where they took away the alleged corrupt puppet president that was manipulating elections and funnelling tons of money to Russia. He has to flee the country when people went to his home, and he apparently had a golden toilet. So after that elections were done and another dude was put in power.
They started to de-russiafy some stuff because they were fed up of russia's influence in a separate sovereign country, and as a result Russia invaded in 2014. They took Crimea, taking the home away from several Crimean Tatars who were originally from there. Ukraine tried to get international help but since "TheWest"™ didn't want a full scale war against Russia, they kinda forced Ukraine to give up Crimea, since they obviously don't have enough resources to defend alone.
Zelensky, an actor, made a TV show where he starred as a good professor that suddenly became president, and fought against the big bad of the country, corruption and oligarchs. People were quite happy by the idea he was promoting, and after popular demand he tried for elections, going into power with a huge majority. He started to de-russiafy again and try to gain more economical support of "TheWest"™, which are the countried whom they have most economical relations. He wanted to join both the EU and NATO, and Putin REALLY disliked that, since he felt threatened. Suddenly, war.
This time, "TheWest"™ decided to support Ukraine more heavily for what I'm sure are their personal reasons, but it's important to see who the aggresor is. That the US made a bridge for Zelensky offering NATO to pressure Russia we don't know, maybe, but the fact that a sovereign country is forcing another sovereign country against treaties that the second one wants is clear.
From now on, all the new info that I get on the subject is passed through all the before mentioned context, assuming that all info is completely tampered with. All of what I told you was stuff I knew about before this war, so it's not like it was propaganda, for me.
As an addendum, some of the family members of my partner work for the military (tech job), and told us that there had been issues with russian agents in Donbass with removing the Ukranian passport to people and giving them the russian one, I believe that the military of every country is fed tons of propaganda, so idk about this one.
What do we also know about Russia? There are several indications that they tempered with international elections by creating fake internet movements and promoting disruptive real ones as we have seen with the whole Trump fiasco. If they did so mcuh effort for countries that are that far, I have zero ounces of doubt that the manipulation strategies Russia actively performed pre-war, in a non-NATO coutry, were a lot more aggresive. Again, commies and tankies don't trust anything about "TheWest"™ so to them all the manipulation reports hold no weight, it's clear that there is a divide in ideology here around how Russia operates things.
I don't have any reputable sources to support my context because I can't bother to search for them, I'm just browsing the web while working like all of us lazy asses, but given this context I have, it's really hard for me and tons of people living in "TheWest"™ to trust anything Russia says, since they have a really long history of tampering with their neighbouring countries (Yes so does USA but this is about Ukraine and Russia).
I take it you had to deal with the Hexbears? Idiots.
they're on other instances as well
edit: having to go through posts like these and blocking all the invader apologists isn't fun, but it beats accidentally reading their drivel again
Such a worthless use of brain cells. Imagine being the product of billions of years of evolution and becoming that.
I'm sure some are on a payroll. You don't get a weird narrative like that started without planting a seed.
It's not a coincidence they look like a better version of 2015 the_donald.
They even mocked me when I said I expected to get banned for saying that... and then banned me. Weird how that works.
Yes, the Russian troll farm pays me to post for the dozen weirdos who actually read this on here. Money well spent!
Makes perfect sense.
Ikr? I wonder what their parents think of them.
Didn't lemmy.ca defed with Hexbear because someone called (in jest) for death to landlords while Canada experiences it's biggest housing crisis ever and rents are rising rapidly YoY solely because landlords, who otherwise deliver no intrinsic value in their position, found a way to make more money from the increased demand?
No, that wasn't the reason and if it's the only one you can think of you have no idea how toxic and disgusting the hexbear community is. I hate landlords too but these people are really taking it so much further than joking about dead landlords.
And, as I recently got downvoted on lemmy.ca for pointing out, it's not (directly) due to landlords, there's just not enough houses built, and I can cite sources on that.
That was one of the big reasons made in the post about Hexbear defed.
The other ones were nebulous concerns about Hexbear comments in other instances... Which, by definition, is the responsibility of those other instances.
The idea that you can't judge anyone by actions not in your personal instance is just such terminally online idiocy. Trolls always seem shocked that their behavior might actually follow them around rather than being conveniently compartmentalized so they can start their trolling fresh before burning out a new instance.
It's the instance's responsibility for policing it's own instance.
And defederation was the action that the instance decided to policy them. If users from that instance take up the majority of their moderation effort, taking into account that instance owners are volunteers and paying for the instance, it does not surprise me.
But why would they? As discussed, very little content was posted on lemmy.ca (where the instance owners actually have moderation power) and of that, most of it was fairly tame.
"Death to landlords" is, while somewhat extreme, a sentiment that is shared by a lot of people in Vancouver and Toronto. These are cities that are facing a record housing and affordability crisis with no indication that the government will intervene.
Defederation based on political ideology seems, well, rather harmful to a healthy democracy... Which, given that lemmy.ca is supposed to represent Canadians, is rather harmful for Canada.
There's a reason Western Europe focuses on the Nazis in the context of the Holocaust: the Nazis never saw the Western Europeans as a stain on the Earth like they did the Jews and the Slavs. Russians don't need to point to Jews to claim Nazism: they can point directly to the treatment of ethnically Russian Slavs during WW2 and the plans that Nazi Germany had for the eradication of Slavs.
Russia doesn't need to point at how Ukraine treats Jews because to Russia, the Holocaust is dwarfed in societal impact by the issues that motivated Operation Barbarossa. The Russians lost 19 million Russian civilians in the war, why would they care about the Jews?
Nevermind that minorities in China get so many advantages it's actually silly how much affirmative action goes on. Provinces dominated by minorities get significantly more funding per capita and even get loss-leading infrastructure projects like the Tibet and Xinjiang railways. Students from minorities get additional bonuses on gaokao (basically SAT, but imagine if schools didn't look at anything else). Minorities are exempt from family planning policies and get massive interest-free loans for starting businesses. They get proportional representation in government. Hell, there are 55 minority groups in China making up 8% of the population.
In the army? The prevalence of rural populations in the army has been observed AROUND THE WORLD. It's a function of rural communities being rather poor and underserved by governments in general, as well as the lack of economic opportunities that living on a farm provides. In fact, the entire notion of the underserved countryside is what allowed communism to rise in Russia and China.
25% ish of the Russian population live in huts and shit in holes in outhouses for a lack of plumbing (mostly ethnic minorities), all while the ruling Mafia collects yachts and private jets, and launches wars.
I'm not saying there isn't wealth inequality elsewhere, but how about a bit of perspective here. Russia cannot actually conscript too many ethnic Russians or use them as cannon fodder, since that is the only ethnicity in Russia that matters politically, since they are the middle class. Instead they send the colonized people, who happen to be those who shit in holes for a lack of plumbing.
Poor people are overrepresented in the army? No way!
It's a conscript army. They shouldn't be.
You say that, but conscription always has exceptions, which usually include having an important job or going to university, which would presumably skew the result towards more poor people in the army. There's also corruption of course.
The Russians lost 19 million Russian civilians in the war, why would they care about the Jews?
Nevermind the fact that it was Russia itself that treated (and keeps treating) its soldiers as cannon fodder
I'd recommend that you read a more insightful commentary on Red Army practices during WW2 rather than following Nazi propaganda from that period. David Glantz' work is particularly insightful.
Either way, those are 19 million civilians. That isn't military dead, that's civilians.
One thing they always forget to mention is the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany in order to partition Poland.
No doubt the Soviets suffered greatly in WW2, and contributed greatly to the allied victory. On the other hand they did not do it alone, and they certainly did not expect to have to fight the Germans at all, at least not at that point.
So? The Great Powers had decided on a policy of appeasement against Nazi Germany. What exactly would you have proposed the USSR do? They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact prior to the war for a reason.
Without the Eastern Front, Europe was lost. Hitler only launched Operation Barbarossa because he thought the Western Front was all but won. Continental Europe was under German control and the UBoats were locking down most of the Atlantic, meanwhile imports of Russian materials was sustaining the German war economy (similarly, imports of American materials was sustaining Japan's war in China and the Pacific)... Of course, it turns out that dividing your forces and taking on Russia in the winter aren't the best ideas, but at the time Germany wanted energy independence and the Caucasus was seen as an easier target than the Middle East (which at the time out produced Romania but wasn't yet the oil superpower it is today).
That's all well and good, but that's never taught at all to Russians and ignored by tankies.
And if you actually read your dumb narrative, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second. You really need to work on your story.
Here's the truth: the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was an authoritarian expansionist nightmare that was happy to get Poland for free. They only fight the Nazis because they had to. And Stalin was a shit strategist.
Improved infrastructure and better access to education is not the win you think it is. Whether infrastructure and education is good or not depends on what you do with it. If you use your infrastructure to connect unruly provinces to your center of power in an effort to better exert control, then the infrastructure becomes a net-negative for the people on the receiving end. As an example, I'm sure nobody sane enough would claim that the US building the railroad was positive for native americans. Likewise, if you use your education to indoctrinate people, then better educational opportunities go hand in hand with increased oppression.
So... You'd rather people be poor and uneducated than wealthy and educated? Huh?
I didn't say that at all. What I did say is that you shouldn't take China providing infrastructure and education as a purely philantrophic endeavour.
improved infrastructure and better access to education is not the win you think it is
What exactly do you think you're saying? That infrastructure and education are bad?
minorities in China get so many advantages it’s actually silly how much affirmative action goes on
You claim China is engaging in affirmative action to strengthen its minorities. I'm pointing out that the actions China is taking can just as easily be turned against the minorities you claim are helped by China.
The actions such as... Giving them additional points on gaokao? Interest free business loans? Exemption from family planning policy? The horror.
How were their ethnic Russians fine when this shit was happening?
I'd ask you to cite your sources but this is all sensationalized. Also, nice summary on Bandera, and the Azov fighters everyone keeps shuffling around to parliaments and fundraisers.
If you're all so blood thirsty go put some skin in the game.
Do you believe the Ukrainian army started shelling Donetsk without any reason?
You mean the US backed, far-right led coup?
No I mean armed insurrection taking over government buildings at gunpoint.
I don't know what country you're from but I don't think there are many that are going to keep the kids gloves on for long in such a situation
Yes, when there was insurection in France and the Paris Commune was created, the government sent the army and killed everyone.
It was a bad thing when France did it, and it was also a bad thing when Ukraine did it. Monarchists and fascists are just equally disgusting.
Yeah I'm sure if you go through human history you can find some insurrections you support and others you don't :)
Perhaps you'll want to pick another example though, as this particular one was started because their government capitulated to a foreign invader while Parisians wanted to fight. So just a little bit of irony there
"whatabout America" - "nooo you can't just call me out on hypocrisy, it makes me look bad"
Whataboutism is literally a logical fallacy. We are talking about Russia, so talk about Russia.
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy. There are historical, political, social, and economic reasons things happen, and sometimes it pays to put things in context. Limiting the discussion to the thing happening NOW and only NOW doesn't allow for a better understanding of the events.
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, especially if it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist. You can see based on past events such as the war on terror and endless drone striking of civilians how governments could expect that to be the standard way of operating. That doesn't make it right, only that military intervention has been and continues to be legitimised politically by the international community.
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy
Lol
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, especially if it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist.
I didn't realize Ukraine was the most powerful nation to ever exist.
Bruh are you being willfully ignorant about that last point or do you legitimately believe I was saying Ukraine is the most powerful nation to ever exist?
You are implying that this war is somehow orchestrated by the United States, since you are whatabouting that way.
The United States is not a belligerent here. Ukraine is the one getting invaded, and Russia is doing the invading - that is the situation. Every time you whatabout to the US you imply that Ukrainians have no agency and no rights to decide for themselves or defend themselves, or are somehow under the control of Joe Biden or some shit (hint: they aren't - polling in Ukraine is very clear that a large majority want to keep fighting until Russia is gone from their country).
So yeah, "bruh", I'm pointing out that when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. If you want to talk about the wider geostrategic implications of the USA, Europe, NATO, and various other nations providing aid to Ukraine, let's dance:
I suppose your moral grounds aren't shaken by Russia seeking help in North Korea and Iran to continue killing Ukrainian civilians? That is an actual whatabout.
Or perhaps that NATO and the EU are voluntary alliances that nations are free to leave at any moment (and don't want in the case of NATO because of Russian aggression). Very nice, "bruh".
You trolls are so predictable.
The person you replied to, saying whataboutism is a literal fallacy, brought up the fact that whenever anyone criticises the US in relation to current events it gets dismissed as whataboutism. I was making a point that hypocrisy in regards to the US, which is the most powerful nation in the world, helps no one, and only hinders the ability for governments to operate.
I'm not saying Ukrainians have no agency, although they are indebted to the west now, I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good. The fact that it aligns with what the Ukrainian government wants is not necessary.
I don't support killing civilians. I don't support killing conscripted people. I don't support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don't even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in. I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want. That Russia is seeking support is not surprising seeing the west supporting Ukraine, that doesn't make it right, that just makes it predictable.
I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good.
Using Ukraine how? Spinning it how? As far as I can tell Ukrainians are the ones begging for help. And fighting off an aggressor such as Russia is a moral good as far as I can tell. The thing I'm curious about is the constant "fear of escalation" which means we have been providing aid too slowly.
I don't support killing civilians. I don't support killing conscripted people. I don't support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don't even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in.
Of course not. I don't want anyone to die for the ego of a sociopathic cunt. I also want everyone to be happy, live long and prosper, and I also wish we could all ride magic flying unicorns to the infinite ice cream parlor in the Bahamas and never gain weight. There are wishes and there is reality.
I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want.
This is all nice, except you have to contend with Russia. The people of the region who are not Russia want security and they can't have it with Russia as a neighbor, unless they join an alliance such as NATO, or accept Russian enslavement.
There are precisely two countries who are Russian "allies" in the region - Belorus which is occupied, and Hungary which is run by a similar Mafia, but it's also protected from Russia by NATO and the EU (I really wish they weren't).
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American. They are spinning it as a moral crusade to uphold democracy, just like they do in every other conflict they are involved in. The Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the Ukrainian people are calling for assistance, but also a large proportion of those fighting were conscripted against their will, which shows they do not want to fight. I don't think the fear of escalation is why new weapons are being withheld for so long, if it was they wouldn't be sent in the end. I feel it is just to keep Ukraine and Russia struggling on in stalemate, which devastates the country and leads to more and more death.
Indeed there are wishes and reality. I told you my wishes so you don't think I hope for some 'Ruzzian genocide of all Ukronazis' or something. The reality is a ceasefire and peace talks will save lives. That's why I advocate for it. Where it goes from there is up to Ukraine and Russia, but an all or nothing mentality does not seem to be working for either of them.
Most neighbours are in NATO now, except Ukraine obviously, and those aligned with Russia. I don't feel that two diametrically opposed blocs sharing a big border while propagandising against each other is very stable, especially when you factor in that Russian support apparently includes countries outside the local region, just as with Ukraine.
The fact that Hungary, a nation that is clearly under a right-wing, reactionary government, is a part of NATO shows how little those in NATO actually care for democratic rule. Also the alignment with the Saudis, and the propping up of Israel despite their constant crimes against the local Palestinians. I'm not saying Russia cares about democracy, the results of Yeltsin's rule have clearly crippled them on that front, along with Putin's never ending run. The point is to see that these are two powerful and primarily self interested blocs, and any time they start talk about how they are fighting for good it should raise some eyebrows at least.
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American.
The fact that you keep ignoring is that Ukraine is asking for the equipment. NOT asking for any boots on the ground but their own. They are willing to fight this war, they need equipment.
Not just the President of Ukraine or the government, but pretty much the whole of civil society.
Accusation of whataboutism is just a hiding place for hypocrites.
Pointing out supposed hypocrites is just a hiding place for people uninterested in actual ideas.
Discussion is furthered by pointing out contradictions in positions. Hypocrisy is one of these contradictions.
So, if you're a US citizen, you can't say anything bad about the Nazis, because the US has done genocides, too.... Is that seriously your argument?
That's a pretty poor takeaway I would say. The argument would be that the Nazis took direct inspiration from the early US idea of Manifest Destiny and the dealings with Native Americans. That in turn should give people reason to think about how to change their own society and how to make the world better, instead of handwaving it away by saying, 'Nazi genocide was worse, why are you bringing up the US?'
You have no right to judge someone for what you yourself are guilty of.
guess we are all fucked then, all world powers are guilty of vile shit
What are they guilty of?
Hawkish imperialism, I guess.
(to be very explicit, I have no love for either)
That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It's a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.
Lol Ukraine strategically decided not to surrender their territory, thus manipulating the peaceful Russians to invade
Why should Russia strategically be required to invade exactly?
I've never heard a cogent argument on this point.
It's because Russia sees NATO as a threat and wants to take control of Ukraine to keep buffer states on the west side. Also, to keep it'sblack sea fleet safe. Why it happened now and not sooner or later - nobody knows. The official reasoning, of course, is bullshit, just like with any other war. Not the worst one, though.
Most people haven't. We all have a filter bubble.
Here is a first draft, my attempt to provide the missing context. Please leave comments on anything bad or missing you notice. https://lemmy.ml/post/4848742
That is just a list of Russian propaganda points. There is no evidence for any of it.
Ask Jens Stoltenburg. He just fucked up and bragged about how he forced them into it.
Okay, but you didn't actually answer the question, you just pointed to the geopolitical equivalent of blurry sasquatch footage. What's the strategic logic?
M.A.D.
Seems like a really dishonest question when you're pretending not to understand such a basic concept. Unless you want me to believe that you're an idiot or something?
The MAD play would be to stay within their borders and make sure their nukes and delivery systems are all in good working order. Escalating at great cost and with a risk to internal stability isn't very good from a MAD perspective.
Agreed but here we are. They're now arming their fascist puppet state with ATACMS and installing nukes in Finland, which is just eliminating MAD by reducing the time that Russia can respond.
I see what you did there. I don't believe NATO has puppet states.
Fair enough, it's the USA that has the puppet states.
Them either, unless you count, like, Puerto Rico. But I think you knew what I meant.
Well here is your chance. Argue this issues sensibly.
Probably the tired line of NATO expansion fears. How'd that work out? Does Russia have more or less NATO countries near their borders? The invasion itself is the best sales pitch NATO could ever need.
This just supports that explanation? Use your brain man.
So Russia says: "Nooo, nooo, don't band together to defend yourself against our aggression! You mustn't band together to defend against me! Wait if you even dare think about it, I'll invade you. So here come the tanks"
What aggression? NATO is the obvious aggressor here? You don't even believe what you're saying. This propaganda is stale man. Even NATO admits it was the provoker.
What aggression? See Ukraine
But that was a response to NATO aggression?
Ukraine wanting to join NATO is NATO aggression? Lol France & Germany even said they wouldn't allow them in
There was no NATO aggression. The response doesn't make sense anyways. It only strengthens NATO. Are you actually Russian? I can't make any other sense of your stance here
Lol, lemmygrad. GTFO with your bullshit
Great contribution there Mr Feynman.
Why thank you good sir
It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine.
Of course Russia had a choice. Not invading a country is the easiest thing to do. I do it every day, and I have nowhere near the power and resources that Vlad Putin does.
Exactly why the choice is so easy for you.
What do you think would've happened if Russia hadn't invaded?
I mean look, it's a nation we talked in to giving up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for protection and recognition by us. We really had no choice but to invade.
Background? Link?