wandermind

NATO does not annex land. Russia does. I am not against willing countries joining their forces. I am against wars of conquest where one party subjugates the other or steals their land. Countries apply to join NATO, and many of those who want to join are not invited to join. Ukraine among them. What was the last time a country willingly joined Russia?

And I'm acknowledging the context you're leaving out: that Russia has been an expansionist, imperialist oppressor country for centuries, and that the newest excuses are just that - excuses. Can't you see how Putin is playing you, using your commendable anti-Nazi position to get you to unintentionally defend his imperialistic talking points?

And your argument was off the rails to begin with when you decided to defend Russian imperialism.

Sorry, I don't have a script - not all of us are as professional at this as you - this is all my own amateur work, and something I'm quite passionate about, so I am glad it is getting so much recognition from you. It indeed seems that you are using the term in the Russian sense, as expected.

It's an interesting "coup" when the government before and after the coup is the exact same, and only one official left the country of his own volition. When you say "nazis", do you mean in the commonly understood sense of "fascist ultranationalists" or in the Russian sense of "anyone who has any grievances with Russia for any reason whatsoever"? There is no evidence of genocide in the Donbas other than that Russia said so. Why does Russia have to care about NATO at its borders, what's the problem?

But this is exactly the kind of "did not" "did too" kind of slap fight I have little interest in because all of the points have been made a million times already.

Even if all of what Russia claims about Ukraine was true, none if it is justification for Russia to invade and annex parts of the country. All excuses for imperialist expansion.

A shame, really, that Russia has gone down this path. It could be a wealthy, flourishing, respected country if after the fall of the Soviet Union it had made friends instead of enemies, like most other post-Soviet states have done and are better off for it. But of course Russia couldn't do that: Russian imperialism is forever.

The historical context is clear enough that there is no need to talk about any of it: the current events are a continuation of centuries of Russian expansionist imperialist aggression. Their excuses may change but the fact of Russian imperialism does not.

Nice job trying to pre-empt any criticism of your position because you know by your own admission that the role of the Minsk Agreements has been debunked repeatedly. That's also why you didn't mention them by name to begin with.

But no, I was not going to say that, because that would be engaging in a "did not" "did too" slap fight which will ultimately end up going nowhere. I prefer to take at face value whatever you guys claim, and then ask questions about the details of your position until we get somewhere where you'd have to admit that your position is inconsistent with itself, that you claim two or more contradictory things to be true at the same time. Usually at that point there is either no more reply or some crazy deflection.

So answer me this, if you can: Why did the violation of the Minsk Agreements make Putin decide to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine instead of more negotiations to stop the fighting? Is peace not the ultimate and most important goal?

Can you provide a link to a page which shows the text of these agreements? Or maybe the Wikipedia pages of some of the specific agreements you are referring to?

statistically in America’s conflicts, it’s like 10 civilians to 140 for every “enemy combatant”, and I doubt the Ukrainian conscripts are more disciplined and trained than America is

Surely you understand the very different nature of America's recent conflicts (air strikes on small numbers of militants living among civilians) to the war in Ukraine (frontlines where civilians have been evacuated and every building has been destroyed). Or taking your numbers of 10 to 140 civilians for every enemy combatant, are you suggesting that Ukrainian soldiers have killed on the order of a million to ten million civilians as "collateral damage"?

Do you genuinely believe America has any interest at all in improving conditions for the people of Ukraine?

I believe that is irrelevant to the Ukrainians. They are happy to get any support they can to help fight off their would-be oppressors. Whether or not America is interested in improving the conditions for the people of Ukraine, it only takes one look at Russia and then at the EU to see where the common people have a better standard of living.

There’s 3 parties here who can unilaterally end the war that has killed or wounded over a million and displaced millions more, America, Russia, and Ukraine.

Of those three, only Russia can end the war unilaterally with no downsides to any party. Ukraine can only end the war unilaterally if they want to be subjugated under Russian oppression. I fail to see how America could end the war unilaterally. Even if they cut all military support to Ukraine, Ukrainians will keep fighting because they do not want to be ruled by Russia.

It is when those bombs are actively helping to stop Russian imperialism.

Can you explain why Putin keeps doing exactly what the US wants him to do?

I'm sorry but I actually have no idea what you are trying to insinuate under all of those layers of sarcasm. Why does Putin keep at it if he fell into a US trap?