I’ll just ignore your remarks about my density if that’s all right.
No, we don’t agree, as I’ve made it very clear.
So if we don’t agree about the positives of Russia’s withdrawal, what would be bad about a Russian withdrawal?
You have also, conveniently, gone from “wanting an end to bloodshed” to wanting an end to “the war”.
Sorry if that’s unclear. I want an end to the bloodshed. The war is a source of bloodshed, so I want an end to the war. If the war could continue without bloodshed that would be much better, and all bloodshed beyond the war should end as well.
I think the position of “oh they should just pack up and leave” is a deeply unserious position to hold with regards to discussions of ending a war.
I agree. That is not my position.
But you didn’t answer my question - do you think Russia cannot or will not withdraw?
So if we don’t agree about the positives of Russia’s withdrawal, what would be bad about a Russian withdrawal?
Maybe don’t ignore the remarks about density if you’re going to go on to ask a question that has been answered quite clearly several times already.
I agree. That is not my position.
You are arguing Russia should withdraw. Therefore that is your position, as has been explained clearly.
If you’re going to be doing this shtick then you have to be less obvious.
do you think Russia cannot or will not withdraw?
Both, neither, whichever. Again, this question has been answered directly.
Hmm, sorry if it isn’t quite clear to me. Let me try and phrase your position clearly:
The conflict in Ukraine is a unnecessary bloodshed, and the sooner it ends the better. Peace talks are currently being obstructed by The West, but if they were not, Ukraine should (and would?) agree to giving up the contested territory and installing a new government that is less hostile to Russia and any remaining Russian minorities. This would lead to a stable peace, and would not lead to further expansion of Russian territory or regime changes in other Eastern European countries, with the bloodshed that would entail.
The alternative, that Russia should withdraw from occupied territories, would be disastrous, since this would lead to a collapse of Russia, and free reign of the Ukrainian government to terrorise its people, ultimately leading to more bloodshed than the conflict itself has caused. And in any case Russia is unable and/or unwilling to withdraw, so that point is moot compared to Ukraine’s willingness and ability to surrender. Any indication that Russian withdrawal might be a solution is equal to the statement that Ukraine’s victory is worth countless deaths and warcrimes like forcing children to become soldiers.
ultimately leading to more bloodshed than the conflict itself has caused
I have no idea how much bloodshed to expect, so I dont know if it would be more.
Bloodshed would continue and it would be significant, but equal to a war between two nations is hard to say.
Any indication that Russian withdrawal might be a solution is equal to the statement that Ukraine’s victory is worth countless deaths and warcrimes like forcing children to become soldiers.
Entering a serious discussion about how the war can end with suggesting Russian withdrawal as a solution is equal to that statement, since Russian withdrawal would only come after a massive turnaround in the war and it would happen far away in the future. Thus if one considers “russian withdrawal” a solution, one is in favor of the war, with all that entails.
Saying, in a general sense, “the war would stop if Russia withdrawed” does not necessarily mean that, if the person is just making a general observation about how wars function, though at that point it would be reasonable to assume the person is an asinine imbecile, since they are both ignoring the causes for the war and just saying some unrelated sentence - akin to stating if my ass was triangular it would make shitting more difficult. While probably true, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
So if its a serious position: Yes. If it is a general observation: No, they probably just dont know what they’re talking about.
Good, then we have a better foundation to continue on.
I’d be interested to hear you on two hypotheticals, if you don’t mind:
Let’s say that somehow the conflict suddenly changed, and it became clear Russia would eventually lose, the question was whether they would defend every meter of land until defeat, or if they would acknowledge defeat and withdraw, would that change your opinion? Let’s say for the sake of argument that their eventual defeat was fully assured.
Let’s say that Russia starts stating that the Russian minorities of the Baltic countries are having their rights violated (and let’s say the Baltics disagreed). Would it make sense for the Baltics to see this as a prelude to an invasion similar to the situation in Ukraine?
You’re now being a debatepervert and going on about “what ifs?” You’re arguing like Ben Shapiro LMAO
Why don’t you just bother college students at this point? You’re not being honest, you’ve done this before, you’re going to keep this up until eventually you see something that sticks out and only focus on that, completely ignoring all the stacked up valid points made against you hitherto that moment.
And you still refuse to answer if the Ukrainian symbols are fascist or not!!
To the first question I have no idea, since there’s so many things that would have to change there’s no way to know what the circumstances would be. What would make the conflict “suddenly change” in such a fashion that Russia is absolutely defeated, yet not to such an extent that there is any territorial change, nor to such an extent that Russia in any way loses its fighting power nor its cohesion? How would defeat be absolutely certain? Why? Why are the russians continuing to fight?
To the second, then that again depends. Is there a large minority in these countries? Is it being genocided? Has Russia attempted any diplomatic solutions - Like signing treaties? Are these treaties being breached?
What about the governments of these Baltic countries? Have they recently been couped by the US and they are now threatening that they will join NATO? (in this scenario by the way we are pretending the current governments of the baltics are neutral to pro-russian, the Budapest memorandum also covers them and part of the agreement between the late government of the USSR and the US/NATO about the dissolution of the USSR was that NATO would never expand further east, certainly not all the way up to the baltics)
If that’s the case then I would say “yes” in the sense that it would be about as reasonable for the US to assume there would be a war with Iran because they’re planning on starting a war with Iran.
If that’s not the case, then I would have to ask more questions to understand why this was occurring, since it seems quite unlikely to just happen out of the blue.
edit I forgot to add: All that is kind of just nothing. What if it was, what if it wasn’t, what if the world was made of pudding?
The actual reality isn’t that one, it’s not even close. And at this point we are so far removed from “If you think the war should go on, then I think you should go volunteer instead of forcing children into nazi torture dungeons”
I’ll just ignore your remarks about my density if that’s all right.
So if we don’t agree about the positives of Russia’s withdrawal, what would be bad about a Russian withdrawal?
Sorry if that’s unclear. I want an end to the bloodshed. The war is a source of bloodshed, so I want an end to the war. If the war could continue without bloodshed that would be much better, and all bloodshed beyond the war should end as well.
I agree. That is not my position.
But you didn’t answer my question - do you think Russia cannot or will not withdraw?
Maybe don’t ignore the remarks about density if you’re going to go on to ask a question that has been answered quite clearly several times already.
You are arguing Russia should withdraw. Therefore that is your position, as has been explained clearly.
If you’re going to be doing this shtick then you have to be less obvious.
Both, neither, whichever. Again, this question has been answered directly.
Hmm, sorry if it isn’t quite clear to me. Let me try and phrase your position clearly:
The conflict in Ukraine is a unnecessary bloodshed, and the sooner it ends the better. Peace talks are currently being obstructed by The West, but if they were not, Ukraine should (and would?) agree to giving up the contested territory and installing a new government that is less hostile to Russia and any remaining Russian minorities. This would lead to a stable peace, and would not lead to further expansion of Russian territory or regime changes in other Eastern European countries, with the bloodshed that would entail.
The alternative, that Russia should withdraw from occupied territories, would be disastrous, since this would lead to a collapse of Russia, and free reign of the Ukrainian government to terrorise its people, ultimately leading to more bloodshed than the conflict itself has caused. And in any case Russia is unable and/or unwilling to withdraw, so that point is moot compared to Ukraine’s willingness and ability to surrender. Any indication that Russian withdrawal might be a solution is equal to the statement that Ukraine’s victory is worth countless deaths and warcrimes like forcing children to become soldiers.
Is that mostly accurate?
What a beatswitch!
Yes, that is approaching accuracy.
I have no idea how much bloodshed to expect, so I dont know if it would be more.
Bloodshed would continue and it would be significant, but equal to a war between two nations is hard to say.
Entering a serious discussion about how the war can end with suggesting Russian withdrawal as a solution is equal to that statement, since Russian withdrawal would only come after a massive turnaround in the war and it would happen far away in the future. Thus if one considers “russian withdrawal” a solution, one is in favor of the war, with all that entails.
Saying, in a general sense, “the war would stop if Russia withdrawed” does not necessarily mean that, if the person is just making a general observation about how wars function, though at that point it would be reasonable to assume the person is an asinine imbecile, since they are both ignoring the causes for the war and just saying some unrelated sentence - akin to stating if my ass was triangular it would make shitting more difficult. While probably true, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
So if its a serious position: Yes. If it is a general observation: No, they probably just dont know what they’re talking about.
Good, then we have a better foundation to continue on.
I’d be interested to hear you on two hypotheticals, if you don’t mind:
You’re now being a debatepervert and going on about “what ifs?” You’re arguing like Ben Shapiro LMAO
Why don’t you just bother college students at this point? You’re not being honest, you’ve done this before, you’re going to keep this up until eventually you see something that sticks out and only focus on that, completely ignoring all the stacked up valid points made against you hitherto that moment.
And you still refuse to answer if the Ukrainian symbols are fascist or not!!
To the first question I have no idea, since there’s so many things that would have to change there’s no way to know what the circumstances would be. What would make the conflict “suddenly change” in such a fashion that Russia is absolutely defeated, yet not to such an extent that there is any territorial change, nor to such an extent that Russia in any way loses its fighting power nor its cohesion? How would defeat be absolutely certain? Why? Why are the russians continuing to fight?
To the second, then that again depends. Is there a large minority in these countries? Is it being genocided? Has Russia attempted any diplomatic solutions - Like signing treaties? Are these treaties being breached?
What about the governments of these Baltic countries? Have they recently been couped by the US and they are now threatening that they will join NATO? (in this scenario by the way we are pretending the current governments of the baltics are neutral to pro-russian, the Budapest memorandum also covers them and part of the agreement between the late government of the USSR and the US/NATO about the dissolution of the USSR was that NATO would never expand further east, certainly not all the way up to the baltics)
If that’s the case then I would say “yes” in the sense that it would be about as reasonable for the US to assume there would be a war with Iran because they’re planning on starting a war with Iran.
If that’s not the case, then I would have to ask more questions to understand why this was occurring, since it seems quite unlikely to just happen out of the blue.
edit I forgot to add: All that is kind of just nothing. What if it was, what if it wasn’t, what if the world was made of pudding?
The actual reality isn’t that one, it’s not even close. And at this point we are so far removed from “If you think the war should go on, then I think you should go volunteer instead of forcing children into nazi torture dungeons”