lichess.org
Donate

The years before the russian attack on Ukraine

you will note it does not specify the alleged murder and torture of the Russian minority in Ukraine either. Who are you to say what chessprimus meant by the vague term "problems"?

Both assertions are part of Kremlin propaganda about "problems in Ukraine concerning the Russian minorities" and part of Putin's attempt to paint his illegal war of aggression as even remotely justified. An attempt to construct a casus belli where there is none.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting the alleged scale of these events purported by the Kremlin's propaganda which speaks of "genocide" but cannot supply any evidence to support that accusation. It can therefore easily be recognised that the Kremlin is utilizing the "Big lie" propaganda technique here. You choose instead to uncritically repeat Putin's propaganda.

I focused on Kremlin propaganda claims alleging that the Russian language was being outlawed in Ukraine instead. Why not? No specific claim had been brought up, so I picked one. It's an apt thing to talk about in this context. You just seem to be mad that you cannot disprove my point at all. Too bad.

I picked the main reasons that Russia went to war; you picked a subsidiary issue. you are ducking the main issues--the history if Ukrainian aggression against the Russia population in eastern Ukraine is well known. I've given you a couple of sources explaining the context of why this happened. that is evidence. watch the interviews.

if you acquaint yourself with the history, you will understand why the term Russian security concerns is not vague at all, it has been explained at length by Putin and other Russian leaders, and their explanations have been supported with evidence by credible experts like Stephen Cohen. You will also discover, assuming you want to look, why the last aggressive move by the US/NATO triggered the Russian response it got. Here is more evidence, a lecture by John Mearsheimer.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

and here is the transcript of an interview with Stephen Cohen, noted expert on the USSR and Russia.
www.thenation.com/article/archive/four-years-of-ukraine-and-the-myths-of-maidan/

The reason I keep bringing up the Iraq War, a genocide and war crime that the US has never been prosecuted for if only because it refuses to sign the treaty joining the UN criminal court, is because some of the same war criminals that lied us into that war lied us into this one. i can find cites for that assertion too.
@ Thalassokrator

You are still describing the viewpoints of George Kennan, Stephen Cohen, Jeffery Sachs as "Kremlin propaganda". watch the videos. you asked for evidence, then you don't want to look at it. It was the majority view for a long time that NATO expansion would risk a war with Russia. This isn't kremlin propaganda. instead of imagining a conversation Putin might have, why don't you read the analysis of people who know Putin? you want evidence, you can start with these videos. and don't misquote me, I am not saying Kremlin propaganda is 100% reliable, I quoted long recognized US experts on foreign policy and Russia. if you have a solid argument, you won't need to make up conversations and misquote people.
> I picked the main reasons that Russia went to war; you picked a subsidiary issue. you are ducking the main issues--the history if Ukrainian aggression against the Russia population in eastern Ukraine is well known.

I picked a piece of Kremlin propaganda in #46. No issue had been specified at that point. I talked about language.

You objected in #47 and claimed:
> yeah this is not true either. they aren't "made up stories" [...]

I demonstrated in #63 that what I said was entirely true. You didn't address that. Instead in #69 you changed the subject to a different piece of Kremlin propaganda (alleged genocide), which hadn't been mentioned before.
In #78 I basically said: "I focussed on something else, why not? Nothing specific had been brought up before."

And now you are accusing me of "ducking the main issue". That's laughable. Partly because you yourself CHANGED the subject (because you can't even admit to being proven wrong), partly because that's false again: I did address the alleged genocide in #78. There's no evidence for it. And I didn't duck it.

You appear to think the alleged genocide is the (or one of the) main reason(s) Russia "went to war". And Ukraine allegedly banning the Russian language is "a subsidiary issue".
I beg to differ. Both are part of Kremlin propaganda. You accept this propaganda uncritically and without question. I don't. Neither is the reason for Russia's war of aggression. Both are pretexts to construct a phoney casus belli.

> I've given you a couple of sources explaining the context of why this happened. that is evidence.

You haven't posted any source for any of your claims until #75. And that's not even evidence for genocide of any kind. You uncritically repeat the Kremlin's propaganda alleging genocide and fail to bring up sufficient evidence (or evidence of any kind).

What you have posted in #75 is an interview with a shady economist turned (COVID-19) conspiracy nut with financial affiliations to dictatorships around the world, expressing his personal opinion on how Ukraine should surrender to Russia. I'm going to read it, don't worry, but I don't expect much in terms of evidence to tell the truth.
@pretzelattack1 said in #82:
> @ Thalassokrator
> You are still describing the viewpoints of George Kennan, Stephen Cohen, Jeffery Sachs as "Kremlin propaganda". watch the videos. you asked for evidence, then you don't want to look at it. It was the majority view for a long time that NATO expansion would risk a war with Russia. This isn't kremlin propaganda.

Their viewpoints do not include the factual acknowledgement of an alleged genocide, do they? That genocide I deem to be a figment of Kremlin propaganda.
No, you've changed the subject AGAIN. Of course! Now you're talking about the NATO expansion following 1991. And claiming that I described it as Kremlin Propaganda, when I never did. NATO did expand after 1991, that's a fact. But that wasn't the topic of our discussion either. You've just now brought this up. And claimed I don't look at "the evidence". And that I said things that I didn't. You do realise that you can go back and read my posts again? Anybody can.

> [...] and don't misquote me, I am not saying Kremlin propaganda is 100% reliable, [...]

I didn't misquote you at all. I didn't quote you directly in #78. I merely pointed out that "The rest of your post is not even worth citing. You uncritically recite the Kremlin's propaganda about an alleged genocide word for word." (me in #78)

Here's what I was referring to and what you said in #69 verbatim:
> the presence of neonazis in the Ukraine military and government was particularly objectionable to Russia, since the people these Banderites collaborated with slaughtered well over a million Russians, mostly Jews.

I stand by my characterisation given in #78: You are reciting Putin's propaganda in #69. That's exactly what it says. It alleges that there's a genocide happening in Ukraine (for which there is no evidence) in which the Ukrainian Neonazis murder millions of Russians. And that therefore Russia needs to intervene with a "Special military operation". It's one of Putin's official justifications for his war of aggression. It's not a reason for the war.

The same applies to my sarcastic remarks in #80.

> I quoted long recognized US experts on foreign policy and Russia. if you have a solid argument, you won't need to make up conversations and misquote people.

You didn't quote anybody. Here's what that word means:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quoted
Definiton 1a.
to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment

There are no "long recognized US experts on foreign policy and Russia" who hold that Ukraine is allegedly committing genocide. Because it isn't. And your section from #69 is certainly no quotation.
It is noticeable that @pretzelattack1 appears in every topic about russian war against Ukraine to write almost solely and exclusively about... USA. Sometimes it comes absolutely ridiculously like "Oh, russia is shelling civilian infrastructure in Ukraine you say, and it's bad? Ignore it! Let's talk about USA (supposedly) attacking russian pipelines!". Such a clear example of an ideal spherical whataboutism in vacuum.
@Thalassokrator said in #74:
> But I realise that I'm in the territory of hopeless utopian idealism now.
Maybe...

The reality is that it was Ukrainian language oppressed for a very long time even in independent Ukraine.

And for Baltic countries language question was literally the question of national security. As there were really a lot of russians who preferred to live in comfort of Europe but dreamed about soviet union. And we know how readily russia used such russians in foreign countries as an excuse for invasions. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine now.
@Thalassokrator said in #65:
> Putin is trying to justify his war.
The position of the Russian minority in Ukraine is not the cause of the war. Just look at how things are in Estonia - after all, Russian troops did not invade these countrie when the Russians was declared "non -citizens" there.

If it were a Russian forum, I could tell you a lot without referring to the wiki - the connections between old friends in Russia and Ukraine were not interrupted, we know what and how is happening there. But the fight against the translator Google tires me very much)
@PTX187 said in #87:
> the connections between old friends in Russia and Ukraine were not interrupted
Interesting observation. In my experience even connections between family members were heavily interrupted by this war. Literally no one from the people I know consider russians "our brothers" anymore.
@Alex_1987 said in #88:
> Interesting observation. In my experience even connections between family members were heavily interrupted by this war. Literally no one from the people I know consider russians "our brothers" anymore.
It is possible that among your friends there have never been those who consider Russian brothers.

Насчет сохранения старой дружбы - это не наблюдение, это я сказал про своих друзей.
А вот наблюдение: сразу после начала войны на русских форумах исчезли украинские участники. А сейчас я вижу, что многие из них вернулись. В основном с левобережной Украины, Одессы.
Но в принципе вы правы: очень много родственных, приятельских связей разорвано.
Думаю, в основном пострадали простые люди, которые узнавали о политике из телевизора. Вот они созвонились, поделились информацией - одни из русского ТВ, другие из украинского, и готово - расплевались навеки.
А люди, которые постарше (сформировались в СССР), поинтеллигентнее, да просто поумнее - те, может, и сохранили родственные связи.
@PTX187 said in #89:
> It is possible that among your friends there have never been those who consider Russian brothers.
Yeah, so true. I was actually born in russian-speaking region, fapped in school on greatness of motherrussia against evil America (read some trash like Lukyanenko) and have relatives in russia.

It is almost funny how russians can't get why Ukrainians hate them. Last video of Sternenko is just about peaceful russians, no terrible Ukrainian Nazis propaganda:

youtu.be/e8-Y2eqc1SM

In reality it is like over. No one wants to see russians in Ukraine anymore after what they did. We are not as blind.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.