kescusayTrump says Ukraine is 'demolished' and dismisses its defense against Russia's invasion
proleSaw this just after reading the post about Russia knocking out Ukrainian citizens’ ability to heat their homes this winter.
Any tankies wanna weigh in on why this is acceptable?
OBJECTION!I suppose it’s considered acceptable for the Ukrainian people to suffer like that for the sake of the state interests of Ukraine and NATO, but personally I disagree, which is why I want the war to end. I personally don’t see how continued fighting is meant to benefit the average Ukrainian.
You understand that stopping fighting would in no way benefit the average Ukrainian and I think most people would agree your nation no longer existing would be the least beneficial thing for Ukraine.
I’m genuinely curious: we all want the way to stop but I really do want to know what’s your solution?
You understand that stopping fighting would in no way benefit the average Ukrainian
No, I do not “understand” this at all. The average Ukrainian would certainly be better off of the fighting stopped.
and I think most people would agree your nation no longer existing would be the least beneficial thing for Ukraine.
First off, Ukraine “no longer existing” isn’t really on the table. Secondly, while a state no longer existing is obviously a bad outcome from the perspective of the state, whether it’s good or bad for the average person, and to what degree, depends on the state and what the alternative is.
I’m not aware of very much that the Ukrainian state was doing to help it’s people before the war, or what rights people living in the disputed territories would enjoy as part of Ukraine as opposed to if they were part of Russia, or vice versa. So I see very little case for supporting either side in the war, from the perspective of class interests as distinct from state interests.
I’m genuinely curious: we all want the way to stop but I really do want to know what’s your solution?
Negotiate. Diplomatic approaches have been completely written off from start to finish, with Ukraine insisting on a complete withdrawal from all disputed territory as a precondition for talks, even from Crimea, which Russia already had before the war. Some territorial concessions are worth it to stop the meat grinder, because the amount of lives that would have to be sacrificed to reclaim all the territory are not worth the benefit.
How? Russia won’t leave and they aren’t tasting anyone well, kidnapping kids during the war kinda tells you everything you need to know.
It 100% is, give in this time and they’ll do it again just like last time.
So you’re ignorant but insist your opinion is correct?
They’ve tried, Russia says give up territory or die, no middle ground. This is very well documented.
That user is an accelerationist who wants Donald to drive the US into the ground so China can gain more global influence. They’re deliberately unwilling to confront facts, as you can see by the suggestion of Ukraine negotiating with country notorious for failing to honor its treaties.
Every word you speak is a lie. Are you even capable of being truthful?
I mean judging by what I’ve seen it doesn’t seem like they’re wrong.
Your stance is at best naively idealistic or at worst incredibly ill informed, stupid and legitimately dangerous.
That user is an accelerationist
Source?
who wants Donald to drive the US into the ground
Source?
Y’all just casually lie about people constantly, all the time and none of you ever see anything wrong with it whatsoever. You’re backing up someone who is blatantly lying, and who constantly lies about my positions. Back up their claims then, if you claim they’re not a liar, if you claim that “it doesn’t seem like they’re wrong.” Show me that you don’t just blindly accept claims with zero evidence. Show me that you’re not a liar just like they are.
Prove my point for me why don’t ya.
They’re deliberately unwilling to confront facts, as you can see by the suggestion of Ukraine negotiating with country notorious for failing to honor its treaties.
That is accurate, their opinion of you isn’t something I can verify but calling for Ukraine to surrender is actually accelerationist behavior so…
In what way is that accelerationist?
Do you have another phrase or word for advocating for Russian regional superiority knowing their intent on reunification of the former Soviet Union.
That’s exactly what you are doing though bud, you just don’t seem to see it. The Ukrainian conflict wouldn’t end with Ukraine surrendering, Russia will simply move to the next country and force Ukrainians to fight for them.
I don’t “know” their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They’ve said the same thing in every conflict we’ve ever been in. Remember “Domino Theory” from Vietnam? How’d that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Well, we’re not fighting them over there, so where are they? It’s the easiest propaganda line ever because you don’t need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.
As for a word for what you’re describing “isolationist” or “dove” would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it’s a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.
You should, they’re not quiet about it at all. None of those were invasions prior to us intervention, you can blame a lot of shit on the US but Ukraine ain’t one.
Nope, isolationists and doves stfu because they don’t want to be involved. You’re neither peacnik nor pinko because Ukraines surrender attains no left leaning goal, it does just the opposite in allowing an authoritarian shithead to take over yet more of the world… Again. This has nothing to do with the war on terror, not being shitty in one area doesn’t mean you aren’t shitty in another, get a grip.
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, “because they don’t want to get involved.” That’s my stance, I don’t want to get involved.
I don’t think you know what any of those terms mean tbh.
Again isolationists isolate themselves, meaning they don’t meddle… Like insisting their opinion on a matter they have no legitimate interest in. You’re involving yourself right now dumb dumb, if you don’t want to be involved… Don’t involve yourself.
That’s not an argument, that’s deflection.
That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
a person favoring a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
Is the literal definition bud.
That’s not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you’re deflecting.
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
That’s literally what I’m arguing for. How could you possibly think that definition supports your position and not mine?
So you’re saying you are Ukrainian? If you aren’t then you’re not an isolationists, you’re an naive idealist who seems to think surrendering to a country who is literally beheading and sledgehammering surrendering troops.
You’ll have a Russian with more resources, more people and more territory. The last two times the world let that happen we lost over 15 million people… Each time.
So you’re saying you are Ukrainian?
No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country’s involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.
Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can’t do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there’s some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?
And when you can’t provide it, as you’ve been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you’re just another liar.
You’re not isolating yourself nor you’re country, you’re actively advocating for actions that weaken left leaning countries and strengthen right leaning ones and at the same limits the ability of us soft power. You’re an idealist, you reject reality, history, logic and factual basis in place of the way you feel things should work out though you know in your heart they will not, they can not.
And when you can’t provide it, as you’ve been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you’re just another liar.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
Also, don’t call yourself a pinko, the far left at least has the fortitude and intelligence to know when their idealism illogical and the birthday to defend. You seem to have none of that.
So, you can’t present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I’m not an idealist at all. You’ve said this several times now but it’s completely wrong. If anything, I’d think you’d call me too cynical. It isn’t realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it’s lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You’re the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can’t explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can’t, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It’s a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
I gave you my exact reasoning. You’re certainly not pricing that other fellow wrong here boss.
You are. You can be cynical and an idealist, I’m not sure where you got the idea they’re mutually exclusive. It is, they’re doing an incredible job for a country that when invaded was not a near peer to the invading country at all and still by the numbers technically aren’t. They’re idealist because you ignore the unpleasant reality that Ukraine already ceded territory once before and Russia invaded a few years later. They will not stop, they are murdering troops rather than taking pows, they’re beheading people on fucking video, they’re sledgehammering their own troops to death, surrendering and losing territory just means they can expect it to happen again.
When exactly did I say it was at all morally correct bud? Reality doesn’t play morals the right choice is almost never the ideal nor in fact often the most moral, it is simply the best choice. Also no that’s realist, but nice try with the bad assumptions.
No I said you show accelerationist behaviors, which you do. It’s out of naive idealism but still it’s outcome is accelerationist. You aren’t an isolationist, you’re an idealist.
I’ve explained it all bud. What part are you confused about specifically and I’ll elucidate it for you. You aren’t opposing intervention, we aren’t intervening. We’re a capitalist country with an incredibly large and profitable arms industry, we’re making a very good sales pitch and protecting an investment. If we intervened Russias Navy as a whole would be gone for good within 72hrs, ask Iran.
I gave you my exact reasoning
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can’t just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
The last I dunno, 7 or so comments as I reply to you question by question each time. The fact you’re confused about that fact does actually explain some things though.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
Totally, except for having factual or logical basis in reality.
Are we going to add troll to that list as well just to prove that other guy fully right. You’re the type of person that makes people laugh at .ml for being blindly idealist idiots.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me, that’s why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you’d defended it when you didn’t explain a word of your reasoning the whole time.
I provided literal definition.
I’ve elaborated multiple times.
You are acting like a troll.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t point out a lie, lack of clarity, misunderstanding nothing. You’ve cried and bitched for 6 messages now about how I’m so cruel and mean because I won’t elaborate but you can’t or won’t point out a single thing you’ve not understood.
The point I don’t understand is how my stance doesn’t meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you’ve done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation. Now you’re repeatedly claiming that you’ve explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you’ve resorted to just calling me a troll.
What an absolute clown.
You’re a troll, we just went over all of those 6 times in the last two days.
And you can’t help but insult people when you fail to defend shitty fucking argument that somehow cow towing to Russia won’t end with Russia invading again exactly like the last time you goddamn moron.
Ed: also you called me a troll first you absolute fucking crybaby.
You were slinging insults at me from the very beginning. You still cannot point to even a single word in a single comment where you explained anything. What a ridiculous conversation, why would you prefer to argue so much over whether you’ve explained you position when you could simply point to where you explained it? Because you didn’t explain it, so this is all you’ve got. Who are you even trying to fool at this point?
Not at all cry baby.
I’ve explained it literally every time, you can disagree with the explanation but you can’t say it didn’t happen or you prove yourself a liar.
I explained it the first 5 times, I’m not going to do it every 15minutes for the rest of my life. You aren’t willing to accept reality, we’ve gone over this so I’m not going to bother explaining it anymore. Simply refer back to older comments, history and I dunno an encyclopedia maybe, I’m not sure but that’s at least the right direction.
If I haven’t explained it why are you even trying at this point and getting downvoted into oblivion.
I conclusively proved that everything I said is true 300 times. I can’t point to a specific comment or quote a single line where I did it once, but it definitely, 100% happened. So, that outweighs your 5 times easily. And before you try to say you explained it 300 times, I proved you wrong infinity+1 times.
Or we could not just say bullshit and actually back up our claims, with the expectation that if you claim to have done something, you can point to a specific line on a specific comment where you have done so. I’d prefer to do that, but if you wanna go with bullshit, then fine, I just don’t know why either of us is still here then.
Once again, trying to have a serious, substantive discussion with a .worlder proves impossible because y’all compulsively lie and do not give a rat’s ass about evidence.
Your friends aren’t conclusive dumb dumb. Also no you haven’t even tried. What exactly makes you think Russia won’t invade again. Simple as.
You haven’t provided anything dumb guy, you provided your feelings that fly in the face of facts.
Literally, the last what 15 comments dumb guy.
Trying to have a conversation usually involves , you know. Involvement. Now you won’t shut the fuck up about your idealistic fucking feelings but won’t listen with your goddamn face to facts that are unpleasant to your dipshit idealist stances.
Also I called you a crybaby because you were literally crying about name calling you started.
Lol I’m not going to continue this conversation as if you didn’t spend the last 15 comments evading a simple question and lying by saying you already answered it.
Trying to talk with you is literally like Monty Python’s argument clinic sketch.
“Is this the right room for an argument?”
“I already told you five times.”
“No you haven’t! Where?”
“Yes I did. I did it before.”
“No, you didn’t. When, where?”
“Yes I did. I said it before.”
Absolute clown.
It’s a simple question. They’ve invaded twice in twenty years both resulting in treaties they’ve broken. What exactly is the reason they will not invade again this time outside of your goddamn feelings.
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says “Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries” to, “Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?” What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the “five times” that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you’re wrong.
That’s the literal subject of this discourse, you’re trying to change the argument lol.
Right, that’s the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn’t isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won’t show where, for some reason. And now you’re trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that’s the only thing you can do at this point.
You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.
So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There’s no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, “Nuh uh” like you did there. If you’re unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?
It is. It’s not, it’s idealist because you ignore really.
If you can’t answer the simple question I’ve stated about a dozen times now your point isn’t facially logically and can be discarded because of it.
What makes you think given the history of invasions in less than 20 years that Russia will simply stop and not invade again.
Simple, just answer the question and stop hiding behind the rest of your crybaby bullshit.
Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don’t see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claim that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn’t isolationist.
As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.
So incredibly dumb or troll, gotcha.
Yes, you’d have to be either incredibly dumb or a troll to say that opposing intervention isn’t isolationist, we’ve been over this.
You’d have to be incredibly dumb to not infer my point, you instead seemingly demand I draw it in crayon via simple to understand pictures.
I see we’re back to the “no it isn’t” level of discourse straight from the argument clinic. Not that you ever left.
Bro you haven’t left the “I refuse to see things that refute my dipshit position” phase. You’re a troll or an idiot.
Nothing you’ve said has in any way justified your absurd stance that opposing intervention isn’t isolationist. Not one single thing! And you just keep doubling down on it over and over while vaguely gesturing about how you’ve somehow explained it in some previous comment you refuse to point to, or now how you totally have a valid line of logic, but you won’t tell me what it is and expect me to just psychically read your mind to find that out.
Look, obviously, you backed yourself into a corner with this. At first, maybe you made an honest mistake making such an obviously indefensible claim. But if that’s what happened, then why double down so much?
What’s going on here is exactly what I described at the start. Because I took an out-group position, you act like you can just say whatever nonsense you like without defending any of it at all. And you know that anyone from you in-group will agree with your side of things because they also won’t care about logic or reason and are operating on the same kind of tribal loyalty. And that’s why you’re going around making absurd claims like this in the first place, because you know you can get away with it because the only people who will call you out on it are people in the out-group, who you can write off. And in the same way that you can adopt absurd positions, you can also just casually lie about people as well. When you see someone say, “I saw a tankie say [blah blah blah]” you’re not going to stop and ask, “Is there any evidence that they ever said that?” you’ll just instantly accept it, or say that it “sounds reasonable” even with zero basis, because you recognize them being part of your tribe and me being outside of it. It’s just jerking each other off.
And that’s why it’s impossible to have any sort of logical discussion on .world or for discussions here to involve any sort of critical thought. Because you can make ridiculous claims like, “Opposing intervention isn’t isolationist” and none of your tribemates will ever call you out on it.
You know it’s true, just like you know it’s true that opposing interventions is isolationist. Obviously you’ll never concede either point to me, because regardless of facts or reason, I’m in the outgroup. But maybe you can admit it to yourself.
And that’s all I have to say to you. Bye.
It has, you’re simply unwilling to see that you are wrong because you’re a troll. Your purpose isn’t argument, it’s to be a loudmouth crybaby and you excel at it. Also I literally just have you the goddamn reason you goddamn moron.
Accept it or go away, either way fuck off kiddo.