Split Thread: Is Ukraine to blame for Putin's invasion

[The Don]

Originally Posted by erlando

Of course you would think that. You probably think Kim Jong-Un or even Putin would make good nominees too...

How are those checks in rubels these days? Hard to cash?

I'm not sure that Michel H is being paid. This forum isn't sufficiently important to warrant it and their posting style is much more like an enthusiastic amateur than an considered professional.

I suppose it's quite edgy to extol the virtues of people the crowd think are abhorrent. I wonder if they lived in Russia that they would be pro-Ukraine or would the threat of real danger prevent that kind of thing.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by erlando

Of course you would think that. You probably think Kim Jong-Un or even Putin would make good nominees too...

How are those checks in rubels these days? Hard to cash?

Actually not Putin, because I blame him for starting his "special military operation" in February 2022, which has caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people (and many are even no longer around to comment about it).

I believe Russia had some reasons to be unhappy, but that didn't justify a war of this magnitude, in my opinion.

As to Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, he's clearly not a great lover of democracy, but I believe his country is a victim of unfair (and even illegal) sanctions.

He shouldn't be blamed for developing nuclear weapons when the U.S., which has used nukes against civilians, and several other countries are doing it. This violates the principle of equality of all nations, a founding principle of the United Nations. The two Koreas should sign a peace treaty, but it seems the United States oppose it (https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...nor-should-it/).

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Actually not Putin, because I blame him for starting his "special military operation" in February 2022, which has caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people (and many are even no longer around to comment about it).

I believe Russia had some reasons to be unhappy, but that didn't justify a war of this magnitude, in my opinion.

As to Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, he's clearly not a great lover of democracy, but I believe his country is a victim of unfair (and even illegal) sanctions.

He shouldn't be blamed for developing nuclear weapons when the U.S., which has used nukes against civilians, and several other countries are doing it. This violates the principle of equality of all nations, a founding principle of the United Nations. The two Koreas should sign a peace treaty, but it seems the United States oppose it (https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...nor-should-it/).

Putin was presumptuous to think his concerns rated our attention. He'd have been better off if he'd stayed in his borders and shut the **** up. Now he's got out attention and we're punishing him for it. He's a mouse who tried to join the elephants' football match and he and his nation are paying the price.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Actually not Putin, because I blame him for starting his "special military operation" in February 2022, which has caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people (and many are even no longer around to comment about it).

I believe Russia had some reasons to be unhappy, but that didn't justify a war of this magnitude, in my opinion.

But why should he not, if you believe the appropriate response is to voluntarily give up some of the territory he's trying to conquer? "He shouldn't do that" is empty words if the only consequence is to receive somewhat less than he tried to seize.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by gnome

But why should he not, if you believe the appropriate response is to voluntarily give up some of the territory he's trying to conquer? "He shouldn't do that" is empty words if the only consequence is to receive somewhat less than he tried to seize.

I do indeed believe that Russia should receive the pro-Russian regions of Ukraine in order to end this crisis, but this should in no way be seen as some kind of reward for Putin's special military operation, which has of course led to many Russian soldiers killed or injured (you might want to see that as some kind of "punishment" if this aspect is important to you).

This is a border rationalization which should have been done before, in my opinion (perhaps in 2014), but wasn't, perhaps because professional politicians and world leaders are too conservative.

For Ukraine, getting rid of Crimea should be seen like getting rid of a dangerous cancerous tumor, which could spread to the whole country, not like losing a cherished part of your house, associated with many good memories, and which you are still using.

Of course, what is a tumor for Ukraine isn't a tumor for Russia.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michel H

For Ukraine, getting rid of Crimea should be seen like getting rid of a dangerous cancerous tumor, which could spread to the whole country, not like losing a cherished part of your house, associated with many good memories, and which you are still using.

Was it also a cancerous tumour before 2014? Or did Russia turn it into one?

Quote:

Of course, what is a tumor for Ukraine isn't a tumor for Russia.

Russia turned it into a dangerous cancer because of the wish to keep the large military port. There were no particular wish to ask the people first.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I do indeed believe that Russia should receive the pro-Russian regions of Ukraine in order to end this crisis, but this should in no way be seen as some kind of reward for Putin's special military operation, which has of course led to many Russian soldiers killed or injured (you might want to see that as some kind of "punishment" if this aspect is important to you).

There is no realistic way for Ukraine to give Russia Ukrainian territory without that being seen as some kind of reward.

It doesn't matter if dead Russian soldiers seem like an important punishment to us. It matters if they seem like that to Putin, to stop him from trying again somewhere else, and unless their deaths damage him politically so badly he loses power there's no hint that he gives a damn.

Quote:

This is a border rationalization which should have been done before, in my opinion (perhaps in 2014), but wasn't, perhaps because professional politicians and world leaders are too conservative.

For Ukraine, getting rid of Crimea should be seen like getting rid of a dangerous cancerous tumor, which could spread to the whole country, not like losing a cherished part of your house, associated with many good memories, and which you are still using.

Of course, what is a tumor for Ukraine isn't a tumor for Russia.

Just as you were wrong to assume that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are pro-Russian, I believe you are also wrong to assume that pro-Russian Ukrainians want to be Russian. You could be a proud and patriotic Ukrainian while also very much wanting your homeland to remain closely allied with Russia and not to ally with the European Union instead. Of course that feeling will have changed after a year of watching Russian invaders destroying your country and killing your fellow Ukrainians.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Was it also a cancerous tumour before 2014? Or did Russia turn it into one?

Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia:

Quote:

Crimea was part of Russia from 1783, when the Tsarist Empire annexed it a decade after defeating Ottoman forces in the Battle of Kozludzha, until 1954, when the Soviet government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkrSSR).

(https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ixty-years-ago).

and Russian is the dominant language:

Quote:

According to the 2014 Russian census, 84% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 7.9% – Crimean Tatar; 3.7% – Tatar; and 3.3% – Ukrainian.[citation needed] It was the first official census in Crimea since a Ukrainian-held census in 2001.[93]

According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 11.4% – Crimean Tatar; and 10.1% – Ukrainian.[94] In 2013, however, the Crimean Tatar language was estimated to be on the brink of extinction, being taught in Crimea only in around 15 schools at that point.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea).

Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by essentially a controversial decision of Communist Party first secretary Nikita Khrushchev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transf...e_Soviet_Union).

Since its culture is Russian (and it is known to be pro-Russian), it should belong to Russia, in my opinion.

What makes Crimea a dangerous tumor for Ukraine, in my opinion, is mostly the current war between Russia and Ukraine, which started in 2014 and became worse in 2022. Should Ukraine try to conquer it, Russia could strike back with nukes, this is very dangerous.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Well, you see, anyone daring to criticize Adolf Hitler in Germany at the end of 1940 would also look "eccentric and unconventional".

But we know what happened later ... (opinions changed).

Sometimes, people can make some massive mistakes, and it is therefore better to check for minority views.

Absolutely hilarious.

You do realize that one of the reasons Hitler was not subject to massive criticism in Germany in late 1940 was because Germany was a Police State in which public criticism of Hitler and the Nazi party could get you arrested, imprisoned and possibly killed. After all listening to Foreign Broadcasts was a crime.

So yeah criticizing Adolf Hiter in late 1940 was indeed "eccentric and unconventional" largely because to do so in any public sense could get you into serious trouble, jail and possibly killed.

And in reality there was a lot disastisfaction with the Nazi regime people were simply extremely guarded about it.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia:

(https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ixty-years-ago).

and Russian is the dominant language:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea).

Crimea was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by essentially a controversial decision of Communist Party first secretary Nikita Khrushchev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transf...e_Soviet_Union).

Since its culture is Russian (and it is known to be pro-Russian), it should belong to Russia, in my opinion.

What makes Crimea a dangerous tumor for Ukraine, in my opinion, is mostly the current war between Russia and Ukraine, which started in 2014 and became worse in 2022. Should Ukraine try to conquer it, Russia could strike back with nukes, this is very dangerous.

It had a far longer history as home to the Crimean Tartars which people were deported by Stalin's regime. You really aren't good at this history thing are you?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia:

Literally every place on the planet has a "long history" of being part of some other entity.

Who exactly should get what because it "used to be a part of them?"

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Literally every place on the planet has a "long history" of being part of some other entity.

Who exactly should get what because it "used to be a part of them?"

Clearly Mongolia needs to press its claim to the region.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia:

(https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publica...ixty-years-ago).

and Russian is the dominant language:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea).

Ontario has a long history of being part of the British Empire and English is the dominant language.

There's no suggestion that it should be split from Canada and handed back to the UK.

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia:
and Russian is the dominant language:

Most of Africa, India, South-East Asia and South America also have long histories of being part of either France, England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, or Italy, and of having French, English, Spanish or Portuguese as dominant languages …

According to your twisted logic (including notions of equality of treatment between countries), that would justify France, England, etc. to re-colonize most of the World on the pretext of protecting speakers of their respective languages

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Pacal

Absolutely hilarious.

You do realize that one of the reasons Hitler was not subject to massive criticism in Germany in late 1940 was because Germany was a Police State in which public criticism of Hitler and the Nazi party could get you arrested, imprisoned and possibly killed. After all listening to Foreign Broadcasts was a crime.

So yeah criticizing Adolf Hiter in late 1940 was indeed "eccentric and unconventional" largely because to do so in any public sense could get you into serious trouble, jail and possibly killed.

And in reality there was a lot disastisfaction with the Nazi regime people were simply extremely guarded about it.

I believe Hitler was really popular in Germany at the end of 1940, after his unexpectedly quick victory over France, see for example this video, from 1:50 :
https://youtu.be/g3xRVKkvx9A?t=110
(it shows Hitler returning to Germany from France).

Quote:

The popularity of the Nazis
The popularity of the Nazis therefore stemmed from an accurate reading of the public mood; the adoption of a program that combined a rather dissonant assortment of nationalist, socialist, and anti-Semitic slogans; and the fact that, in Adolf Hitler, the party had a charismatic leader. ... However, it would be a mistake to see the reasons for the Nazi electoral successes of 1930-1933 as limited to the exploitation of antisemitism rooted deep in the national psyche. Besides his call for reducing the role of the Jews, Hitler offered the Germans a relatively coherent vision of national greatness, in which history and geopolitics destined Germany for the leading role in Europe. This vision swept many off their feet. They regarded the recovery of the territory lost during World War I, the integration into Germany of German-populated areas in neighboring states, and an as yet undefined form of hegemony over the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, populated by racially inferior peoples, as right and just.

(https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history...-of-the-nazis/).

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Flo

Most of Africa, India, South-East Asia and South America also have long histories of being part of either France, England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, or Italy, and of having French, English, Spanish or Portuguese as dominant languages …

According to your twisted logic (including notions of equality of treatment between countries), that would justify France, England, etc. to re-colonize most of the World on the pretext of protecting speakers of their respective languages

No, I said no such thing.

You may note that Crimea is geographically close to Russia, the same isn't true for France and Congo, for example.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe Hitler was really popular in Germany at the end of 1940, after his unexpectedly quick victory over France...

Well, duh. And Putin would doubtless have been popular at home if he had secured a quick victory over Ukraine, as he obviously expected he would do.

Another similarity is he put police-state-style laws in place to throw you in jail if, for example, you dared to criticise his war or even call it "a war".

Mick Wallace or Roger Waters can play the part of Putin's useful idiots without fear of being thrown in jail because, unlike hapless Russians, they don't live in a police state ruled by a gangster determined to secure his legacy as the next Peter the Great. The worst that will happen to them is people will actually listen to them and appreciate what dicks they are.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I said no such thing.

You may note that Crimea is geographically close to Russia, the same isn't true for France and Congo, for example.

It's true of England and Ireland though. Should England re-invade Ireland to 'save' it from the EU, like Putin is 'saving' Ukraine from the EU?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I said no such thing.

You may note that Crimea is geographically close to Russia, the same isn't true for France and Congo, for example.

I note that Crimea is geographically closer to Ukraine - but then, in your opinion, anywhere where Russian is spoken should be annexed by Russia, so the Black Sea littoral should also belong to Russia, along with presumably the rest of Ukraine.

What about all the peoples that Stalin deported from the Crimea? Should they have any say in the future of Ukraine?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Well, duh. And Putin would doubtless have been popular at home if he had secured a quick victory over Ukraine, as he obviously expected he would do.

Another similarity is he put police-state-style laws in place to throw you in jail if, for example, you dared to criticise his war or even call it "a war".

Mick Wallace or Roger Waters can play the part of Putin's useful idiots without fear of being thrown in jail because, unlike hapless Russians, they don't live in a police state ruled by a gangster determined to secure his legacy as the next Peter the Great. The worst that will happen to them is people will actually listen to them and appreciate what dicks they are.

If you listen carefully to what Wallace or Waters say, you'll realize they actually do not approve Putin's war, their message is more subtle:

Quote:

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unforgivable, the devastation is horrific as in all Wars.

(Mick Wallace, https://twitter.com/wallacemick/stat...552768?lang=fr).

This is why it's important to pay attention to what those people have to say.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I note that Crimea is geographically closer to Ukraine - but then, in your opinion, anywhere where Russian is spoken should be annexed by Russia, so the Black Sea littoral should also belong to Russia, along with presumably the rest of Ukraine.

What about all the peoples that Stalin deported from the Crimea? Should they have any say in the future of Ukraine?

Yes, of course, the Crimean Tatars were allowed to vote in the 2014 referendum in Crimea. Quite a few of them support Crimea being part of Russia as of 2019:

Quote:

In December 2019, Levada-Center was again commissioned by John O'Loughlin, College Professor of Distinction and Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Gerard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech's National Capital Region campus, to carry-out a survey of Crimea's attitudes towards their referendum and living as a part of Russia. The survey aimed to repeat the questions of their 2014 survey. The 2019 survey found that 82% of Crimea's population supported Crimea's accession to Russia, as opposed to 86% in 2014. The survey also found that 58% of Crimean Tatars now supported Crimea's accession to Russia, as opposed to 39% in 2014.[50]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...ferendum_polls).

[MarkCorrigan]

Just a reminder, you're arguing against someone who is an apologist for nazi Germany and who not only couldn't detect obvious sarcasm, when the person who made the sarcastic comment told Michel this, he insisted they were lying.

This thread is pointless, Michel isn't going to change because he's textbook dunning-kruger.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Just a reminder, you're arguing against someone who is an apologist for nazi Germany and who not only couldn't detect obvious sarcasm, when the person who made the sarcastic comment told Michel this, he insisted they were lying.

This thread is pointless, Michel isn't going to change because he's textbook dunning-kruger.

Literally nobody in this thread is operating under any pretensions we are here for Michel's benefit.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Like Silvio Berlusconi and Viktor Orbán, he might be a good candidate for a Nobel Peace prize, but he's unlikely to get it, because it seems you need to have opinions close to those of the United States to be awarded this prize.

That's a lie. Stop lying.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe Hitler was really popular in Germany at the end of 1940, after his unexpectedly quick victory over France, see for example this video, from 1:50 :
https://youtu.be/g3xRVKkvx9A?t=110
(it shows Hitler returning to Germany from France).

Quote:

The popularity of the Nazis
The popularity of the Nazis therefore stemmed from an accurate reading of the public mood; the adoption of a program that combined a rather dissonant assortment of nationalist, socialist, and anti-Semitic slogans; and the fact that, in Adolf Hitler, the party had a charismatic leader. ... However, it would be a mistake to see the reasons for the Nazi electoral successes of 1930-1933 as limited to the exploitation of antisemitism rooted deep in the national psyche. Besides his call for reducing the role of the Jews, Hitler offered the Germans a relatively coherent vision of national greatness, in which history and geopolitics destined Germany for the leading role in Europe. This vision swept many off their feet. They regarded the recovery of the territory lost during World War I, the integration into Germany of German-populated areas in neighboring states, and an as yet undefined form of hegemony over the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, populated by racially inferior peoples, as right and just.

(https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history...-of-the-nazis/).

(https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history...-of-the-nazis/).

In your original comment you said at the end of 1940 criticism of Hitler was "eccentric and unconventional".

Just how does the above deal with my point that the main reason why criticism of Hitler was "eccentric and Unconventional" at the end of 1940 was because Nazi Germany was a Police State that supressed by mass coercion such criticism?

May I point out that in free elections the Nazis never got a majority of the votes. That the Nazis were popular among many doesn't mean that if freedom of speech had been allowed there would not have been substantial criticism and it would have been anything but "eccentric and unconventional".

Before the Nazis established their Police State, despite their popularity, there was massive, sustained criticism of the Nazis. Also Hitler's popularity after the fall of France was not sustained by late 1940 it was wanning due to the war continuing and may I again point out that Police State supression was what made criticism seem "eccentric and unconventional".

One can point out that in Democracies, that actually have functioning freedom of speech the fact that a politician is very popular doesn't make criticism of said politician "eccentric and unconventional". Police States distort this by suppressing certain views.

[dudalb]

I am now begining to think we are being had by a unusually persisent troll.

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I said no such thing.

That's however exactly the meaning and the implications of what you are saying

Quote:

You may note that Crimea is geographically close to Russia, the same isn't true for France and Congo, for example.

And here you just gave China justifications for invading its neighbours (Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Korea, Japan, all countries that derive their culture, languages and/or writing system from China and have been considered vassals of the Chinese Empire over the centuries).

Choisis ton camp, camarade : either there is one rule for all, or one rule for you and your friends and one rule for the others

[bruto]

Considering proximity as a pretext for invasion is just plain stupid. That's what borders are for. If proximity is a pretext for invasion, every place on earth is eventually next door, and can thus be taken. That's what borders are for!

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Yes, of course, the Crimean Tatars were allowed to vote in the 2014 referendum in Crimea. Quite a few of them support Crimea being part of Russia as of 2019:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_C...ferendum_polls).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LttV61BtHVM

145,000 of your countrymen dead. Anyone you know?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Literally nobody in this thread is operating under any pretensions we are here for Michel's benefit.

Point taken.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Literally nobody in this thread is operating under any pretensions we are here for Michel's benefit.

True.

I'm here for the benefit of lurkers, primarily to help counter Michel H's obvious pro-Putin, pro-genocide, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-authoritarian, Nazi-aligned, Hitler apologist statements.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

True.

I'm here for the benefit of lurkers, primarily to help counter Michel H's obvious pro-Putin, pro-genocide, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-authoritarian, Nazi-aligned, Hitler apologist statements.

I believe I have made it clear I am neither an Adolf nor a Vladimir supporter, see my previous posts:

Originally Posted by Michel H

Hitler made at least two major mistakes: invading the Soviet Union, and persecuting the Jews in a most horrible way. And the second world war didn't end well for him.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Actually not Putin, because I blame him for starting his "special military operation" in February 2022, which has caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people (and many are even no longer around to comment about it).

I believe Russia had some reasons to be unhappy, but that didn't justify a war of this magnitude, in my opinion.

From what I have seen and read about the Nazis, I am led to conclude that, yes, Adolf Hitler was probably popular at the end of 1940, in Germany, after his victory against France.

France had declared war illegally, and lost, this gave Adolf some moral prestige too.

When I say "popular", I mean popular among the ordinary people, not among the physicists at the Göttingen University.

If, at the end of 1940, you had walked into a Berlin bar, and claimed Hitler is a horrible monster and an idiot, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a schizophrenic, you might perhaps have faced some negative reactions, in my opinion.

Now, coming back to the main topic of this thread, making some pro-Russia statements doesn't make you a Putin apologist.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe I have made it clear I am neither an Adolf nor a Vladimir supporter, see my previous posts:


From what I have seen and read about the Nazis, I am led to conclude that, yes, Adolf Hitler was probably popular at the end of 1940, in Germany, after his victory against France.

France had declared war illegally, and lost, this gave Adolf some moral prestige too.

When I say "popular", I mean popular among the ordinary people, not among the physicists at the Göttingen University.

If, at the end of 1940, you had walked into a Berlin bar, and claimed Hitler is a horrible monster and an idiot, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a schizophrenic, you might perhaps have faced some negative reactions, in my opinion.

Now, coming back to the main topic of this thread, making some pro-Russia statements doesn't make you a Putin apologist.

Tell me, do you...you know, get all excited and get a special feeling inside after when you look at pictures of mass graves?

Putin is a Nazi. Hitler was a Nazi. You just really love Nazis.

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe I have made it clear I am neither an Adolf nor a Vladimir supporter, see my previous posts:

Tell us, do you really believe the nonsense you're spouting, or do you really think we are stupid enough to swallow your garbage ?

Quote:

Now, coming back to the main topic of this thread, making some pro-Russia statements doesn't make you a Putin apologist.

But making some mild criticisms of Putin and Hitler about peripheral issues while excusing their most egregious crimes and suggesting they get rewarded for them clearly makes you one!

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Flo

But making some mild criticisms of Putin and Hitler about peripheral issues while excusing their most egregious crimes and suggesting they get rewarded for them clearly makes you one!

I did not criticize Putin and Hitler about "peripheral issues", I criticized them severely about core issues: the invasion for Putin, and the Shoah for Adolf.

My point of view, repeated many times (politely), is that Putin's invasion was a mistake but nevertheless the best way for Ukraine to end this war and avoid more mass graves is to cede some territory, Crimea and the people's republics, to Russia (I hope you know what the people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are).

I don't think judicial harassment against Putin really helps.

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I did not criticize Putin and Hitler about "peripheral issues", I criticized them severely about core issues: the invasion for Putin, and the Shoah for Adolf.

You really do think we're illiterate, forgetful idiots, don't you ?

Quote:

My point of view, repeated many times (politely), is that Putin's invasion was a mistake but nevertheless the best way for Ukraine to end this war and avoid more mass graves is to cede some territory, Crimea and the people's republics, to Russia (I hope you know what the people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are).

Sure, calling (politely) the invasion of a neighbouring country "a mistake" is a severe criticism indeed, especially when it is followed by advocating letting the invader get away scot free, and profit from said "mistake", and then blaming its victims !

Quote:

I don't think judicial harassment against Putin really helps.

Not as much as his removal, but it is a good start nevertheless …

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Flo

Sure, calling (politely) the invasion of a neighbouring country "a mistake" is a severe criticism indeed...

Maybe worth a reminder that Michel has genuine difficulty in discerning sarcasm, even if it seems obvious to others.

[Flo]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Maybe worth a reminder that Michel has genuine difficulty in discerning sarcasm, even if it seems obvious to others.

I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't understand it.

He very much reminds me of Nazi/putin apologists I know in France, French-speaking Switzerland and Belgium, who are very good at carefully selecting the parts they will respond to or not, to pretend not to understand other parts, and to play what we call "la grande scène de la pucelle effarouchée" * whenever the questions become really embarrassing …

*"the big scene of the frightened maiden"

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I did not criticize Putin and Hitler about "peripheral issues", I criticized them severely about core issues: the invasion for Putin, and the Shoah for Adolf.

My point of view, repeated many times (politely), is that Putin's invasion was a mistake but nevertheless the best way for Ukraine to end this war and avoid more mass graves is to cede some territory, Crimea and the people's republics, to Russia (I hope you know what the people's republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are).

I don't think judicial harassment against Putin really helps.

Ukraine has made it clear that they will prosecute orcs who commit war crimes and have ruled out ceding any territory so why even bring it up? The idea has already been rejected.

None of what you want is even up for discussion. Indictments will continue. The lead prosecutor has said so. Russia has been fought to a stand still while Ukraine refits its army with new, upgraded equipment.

Can you imagine what will happen to you people when all their armed forces with better tanks and mechanized forces are back in the field. You couldn't even take Bahkmut while Ukraine fought with one hand tied behind its back. Your exhausted forces are about to face a new, modern Ukrainian army fresh, trained and motivated. Now would be a good time to start an orderly withdrawal of your forces and the squatters in Crimea. To wait until after Ukraine reaches the Sea of Azov will be devastating for you.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michel H

France had declared war illegally, and lost, this gave Adolf some moral prestige too.

???

Adolf also gained a lot of prestige by occupying Czechoslovakia (illegally) and conquering Poland (illegally). Why it should be illegal for France and the UK to honour their defence pact with Poland is beyond me.

Putin, like his Nazi idol, also expected a lot prestige from illegally attacking Ukraine, and though dented, he still can get it by achieving a peace where he can dismember Ukraine.