Just two that are obvious, tolerating of Nazi symbology and members in Azov (your initial source on this did not go into detail on how exactly Azov doesn’t allow Nazis in it anymore after being explicitly created by them 10 years ago), and de-escalating the war on Luhansk and Donnetsk and recognising their desire to be independent.

You do understand what justified means? You just gave me examples of the demands, not how they're justified.

I’m not sure how somebody could be against those things, let alone deny that they’ve been happening for 10 years now.

I'm sure you don't. I can understand being critical of those things but that is not justification. If your neighbor beats up their wife/girlfriend do you think it would be justified to kick down their door, beat the man into submission , kill their children, thrash the entire apartment and call it a job well done? Would it be more justified if you before-hand told that you would do it?

But please, don’t address the important bit and go talk about random unrelated things like language levels, which is a tangent on top of a tangent on top of a tangent.

You do realize you're the one who brought up language levels?

erm, no? Aren’t we on an English site?

Because in this case the English source looks better than reality?

On the other hand your other source isn’t particularly “official,” it’s just a blog in Russian.

I guess your Russian is not that good then. It's a blog post that goes over the 2020 population consensus data. That numbers there are official numbers. More than 99% of Russians stated they know only Russian.

I honestly don't have anything else to say about the rest of your comment. It goes too off the tangent to really focus on any individual part there. You're just going on and on about how you don't care but you still keep coming back.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You do understand what justified means? You just gave me examples of the demands, not how they’re justified.

It is definitely justified to ask your neighbour to stop killing your other neighbours, joining Nazis and not letting the people there decide on whether they want to be independent or not. Imagine if the USA had a terrorist group called the keykeykey, and those groups went around killing people for being black or hispanic, and are waging war on the southern regions of Texas. I think you'd agree that it would be justified for Mexico to go "Could you remove keykeykey people from your government? They literally want to kill mexicans and black people in your borders." Wouldn't be so nice for the USA to say "no fuck you" like NATO did, would it? Before you ask me "when did NATO ignore the issue," read your own initial source from nato.int you linked a while back.

Russia has been complaining about that for 10 years now, and Azov only got more entrenched in government while the Donbas war got escalated and fed supplies by NATO. I think you mistake me saying that Russia had some valid points with me thinking that they're perfect and above criticism. But they certainly have a point that declaring war on a separatist region after a coup is incredibly abhorrent, and to do that while glorifying Nazi collaborators like Bandera, toppling monuments to those who defeated the Nazis and having people with swastika tattoos and Nazi symbols in their paramilitary death squad just makes it too on the nose.

If your neighbor beats up their wife/girlfriend do you think it would be justified to kick down their door, beat the man into submission , kill their children, thrash the entire apartment and call it a job well done? Would it be more justified if you before-hand told that you would do it?

Now you're talking about the subsequent war (in very inaccurate terms, I must add), instead of the guarantees that NATO could've done before the war to avoid it happening. But since you like individualistic and simplistic analogies, have another one. If your town has a keykeykey faction going around killing minorities and preventing them from even getting their own representation in government, toppled their preferred mayor and are doing terrorist attacks on the regions most populated by black people and mexicans, would it not be justified for bigger neighbouring city (that has a lot of mexicans) to ask for it to stop over 8 years, and after it proving fruitless to send in a swat team as requested by the local population? If it were me, I'd be begging for that swat team after 1 year, let alone 8.

Now imagine that this bigger city has been blocked from interfering there by another bigger city on the other side, which specifically sells weapons to this keykeykey, and no matter how many pretty speeches on the ~~UN~~ congress they make, the rival city refuses to concede to even disbanding or stopping selling weapons to the keykeykey. You can complain all you want that the Russian forces have "thrashed the apartment" but this war has been going on for 10 years now, not just since 2021. You can probably see how your analogy fails to properly represent the death toll (thousands) and civilian displacement (more than 1 million people) of the Donbass war as "beat their wife," coming right after the 2014 coup, which is why I usually don't do analogies.

Because in this case the English source looks better than reality?

I think you misunderstand there buddy, I don't throw away sources. I read them critically. You can give me any sources I can reliably read and we can talk about them. Problem is, when I do talk about them you change subject. Which I bet is why you chose a blog in Russian rather than a text I can read. Unlike you, I don't have Russian language proficiency, and I'd like it if you respected that.

I guess your Russian is not that good then. It’s a blog post that goes over the 2020 population consensus data.

I guess your English is not that good then, I said it's from the census in the reply:

The only source listed is the Russian census, which comes straight from the Russian government.

Since you like those sources and clearly are fluent in Russian, you can help me translate the excel file hosted in the Russian Govt website here to check on those “study languages.”

I honestly don’t have anything else to say about the rest of your comment. It goes too off the tangent to really focus on any individual part there.

Oh, I see. I guess we will never know why all those statements you threw out which I mocked were "obviously wrong." Nor your taking issue with me paraphrasing you saying that "lots don't know English" as if I made it up. Or your confusing statement that NATO doesn't call the 2014 coup the "Revolution of Dignity." Or that the USA backing a coup doesn't implicate the defence organisation they lead. Or that Russia denies their support for the LPR and DPR. Or your myriad of other bizarre claims that you throw around and then immediately forget about in the following reply.

You throw so much bullshit at such an alarming rate, but don't even acknowledge when shown to be incorrect on each (even complaining that my reply debunking some was too long), which is the hallmark of a bad faith debatebro. Grab a microphone and camera, learn to talk really fast and go own some libs in uni campuses like the Ben Shapiro impersonator you want to be.

Just in case you completely skipped it, here again is a source on the Russian demands before the war that you keep ignoring. Next comment is going to be like "and yet again I see no sources, I'm very smart."

You’re just going on and on about how you don’t care but you still keep coming back.

It's a saturday, cooking day. Me staring at the food boiling is just mildly less entertaining than you. Ironically it also requires a bit more effort. It's like morbidly browsing mensa teens on quora, but this one actually has a parasocial relationship with me.

Edit: not to mention, when I did not come back, you came crying to me a week later that I didn't prove you wrong enough, and you have a deep need to prove wrong or be proved wrong. Debatebros are so needy.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Have you read your source? Not a single mention of nazis or the war in Donbas. So go read your own source and then come tell me how those demands are justified.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Good point, I mixed up the articles about this, the Guardian doesn't even list the demands one by one. Here's one that lists all demands, which don't list the Nazis or Donbas directly, though those have been complained about before (see Putin speech earlier on). Then you can see this slightly newer negotiation development which acknowledges the DPR and LPR and demands the end of militarisation there and denazify (and therefore the end of the paramilitary death squads).

Now, you don't seem to understand that Russia can demand whatever it wants, even different things that were not in previous demands. That means that they'll often drop or return to demands depending on their conditions, and I'm not Putin's personal spokesman and don't have to 100% agree with which of their demands is the most important. What prompted this whole conversation is what NATO could've done to de-escalate the conflict. Do you know a single guarantee made by NATO to reduce the likelyhood of war or prevent it going on for another 2 years with the risk of nuclear warfare? I'd be happy to hear it.

Also you seem to confuse the meaning of "justified" there. You asked for sources on what demands have been made, those are up in the first paragraph. They don't justify anything though, only prove that the demands have been made in the past. Now after that you need to verify the veracity of those demands, and here are some sources that you might enjoy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, on Azov and Nazis being trained and supplied by NATO and the Ukraine government, and just the wikipedia article on the War on Dombas because you don't seem to even be aware of it. Then once you come to a conclusion on whether the demands exist and are factual, you can decide if disbanding the Azov brigade and recognising the LPR and DPR are morally justifiable or not. "what sources?????"

cute how you ignored everything else, though. Makes you look very sensible and intellectual. You should make an account here

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How long are we going to talk in circles? I have been explaining how none of the demands are justified. Like you said Russia can demand whatever it wants, but whether those demands should be met depends on how reasonable or justified they are. It should be apparent that what NATO could've done to de-escalate also follows the pattern of satisfying reasonable demands. If none of the demands are reasonable there's nothing NATO can do to de-escalate, right? So, aside from the dissolution of Azov and recognizing LPR and DPR as legitimate (both of which are arguable whether NATO could even do something or if meeting those demands even matter considering they weren't even in the first demands) what else could've NATO done?

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay I'm going to stop you there. Do a proper analysis. You seem to want me to think your whole argument for you rather than making yourself clear.

First, have the demands ever been made? You flip flop on that a lot.

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

And only then can you tell me whether they are morally justifiable or not.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they're partly to blame for this war.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

You have a whole week to write because I won't reply until next Saturday, since I'm no longer cooking. Don't get too lonely.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And back with the vagueness.

We already established demands. The last two comments we've explicitly discussed demands. But don't worry, I've got you. Here's the official draft that we first discussed. Bunch of legal jargon so I'll condense it to some key points. I'll also add the points you brought up afterwards (the nazis and DPR and LPR)

No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.
No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.
No more NATO expansion, including Ukraine.
All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.
De-nazification of Ukraine
Recognition of DPR and LPR

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

No idea where you get that considering I've pretty consistently said that they're unreasonable (with the exception of the nazi and DPR/LPR thing), which pretty much implies they're not based in facts.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they’re partly to blame for this war.

Somehow I have to make your points? Whatever, lazyass.

No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.

NATO cannot segregate itself so obviously they can't comply with this.

No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.

This one is the most reasonable one, but even that is not that clear cut. Some of those missiles are a part of the missile defense system that NATO won't remove so that's not a fulfillable demand. But NATO has given Russia a chance to come to an agreement here. Back in 2011 Biden visited Moscow to discuss a missile defense co-operation which Russia turned down. Similarly there was the IMF treaty (which also covers some of the missiles in question) that got scrapped under the pretense that Russia wasn't complying with the treaty. So one could make the argument that Russia themselves creates a situation where they could make such demands. Do you need sources for those or are you capable of googling those two things yourself? Eh fuck it, IMF wiki and missile defense co-operation that never got off the ground.

All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.

It's again one of those things that seems reasonable except for the fact that NATO countries that are in the EU literally cannot accept this. For instance Georgia is planning to join the EU. If Georgia joins the EU then they get protected by EDA which means it gets protected by the same countries that would here have to agree to never protect Georgia. It's an obvious conflict of interest for EU and thus by extension also for NATO.

De-nazification of Ukraine

Not sure what more NATO could do there. You don't seem to be aware that the US hasn't provided funds to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion since 2017. The biggest NATO member doesn't support the Nazi battalion. I really don't see what else NATO could do besides wag their finger at Ukraine who claims their battalion is not longer a nazi battalion. But I'll be happy to concede this point because I seriously doubt NATO doing something about the nazis would've deterred Russia. It didn't even make it into the first round of demands.

Recognition of DPR and LPR

I'll also concede this point mostly for the same reasons as the previous one. But also because Russia could've just walked into DPR and LPR like they did in Crimea and say "this is mine now". Nothing really happened over Crimea, nothing would've happened over those two regions either. The acknowledgement of those regions wouldn't have prevented the war, Russia wanted to take a bigger bite.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

How about no. Those two are the least relevant in the list of demands, they weren't even in first list of demands.

You have a whole week to write because I won’t reply until next Saturday, since I’m no longer cooking. Don’t get too lonely.

Don't worry. I'll pester you whenever you're online.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

!remindme ~~7 days~~ 1984 years

Edit: go away debate pervert