Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

There’s debating the other side and there’s bring a d*ck. They’re not mutually inclusive.

They tried diplomacy. It was called the Budapest agreement. It guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Russia destroyed it. Why would Ukraine trust to abide by any similar deal?

Russia signed a peace deal in Chechnya. Rearmed, came back and flattened cities. Why would Ukraine trust it not to do the same?

Russia still hasn't withdrawn troops from Moldova years after agreeing to do so. Why would Ukraine trust in any Russian promises?

Russia has over the years given zero to believe any bona fides wrt diplomacy. It is clear it only respects military force.

In light of this, anyone calling for 'diplomacy' like a mantra is either ignorant of recent history or has been deluded by Russian propaganda.

Just as soon as the Russian Military is completely destroyed and have departed from Ukraine completely and Putin is no longer a threat to its neighbors or anyone else, that will be the time for diplomacy and treaties etc. But not before, Then bring it on!!!

Is Ukraine a sovereign and independent country? Simple question. Yes or no answer please?

That's what Russia signed up to in the Budapest agreement. Yes or no?

You run away from the points put to you about Russia's violations of previous diplomatic treaties with these nonsense questions.

The cause for the Russian invasion is imperialism. The proof of this was provided to you already on the thread by Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin, and should have been apparent to anyone paying attention.

Russia is there to plunder and dominate Ukraine.

The only thing the US can be faulted on is not deterring Russia from this illegal act, with more support to Ukraine. They are aiding a democracy invaded illegally by Russia.

If Russia had any fear of NATO invasion, it would not have stripped its forces from Kalingrad and the Baltic states border to send to Ukraine.

Do you condemn without reservation Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine? And the war crimes and atrocities they have carried out such as Bucha?

If you do not, the falseness of your earlier claims of anti-imperialism is plain for all to see. As is the moral bankruptcy of your position.

This is a thread about Ukraine. Ukraine. Stop deflecting.

The absolute lack of foundation to any statement you have made is obvious.

You keep asking for mediation and diplomacy.

You run away from basic questions put to you about the previous diplomacy efforts Budapest agreement with meaningless nonsense and whataboutery.

You were asked this question multiple times on the thread already - and ran away:

Do you accept that Ukraine has the right as a sovereign state to join the EU without Russian interference? As is provided for in the Budapest and Helsinki accords Russia signed either in its own right or as USSR?

You couldn't even answer this simple relevant question in a demonstration of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your position.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you 'faux concern' about deaths of Ukrainians yet are completely unable to bring yourself to condemn the actual perpetrators?

You were asked to condemn atrocities such as Bucha. Multiple times. You refuse to do so. Therefore I put it to you are an apologist for Russian war crimes and atrocity. You give succor to such atrocities by your silence. It is reasonable to conclude therefore you see nothing wrong in such atrocities worthy of condemnation. You post here as an apologist for Russian imperialism.

Surprised to see Sky News actually reporting something truthful about the conflict in Ukraine.

This move has been rightly criticised by various groups such as Amnesty International, although I suspect others will come along and accuse them of being paid Russian assets. The people I feel most sorry for in this conflict are the poor conscripts on both sides forced to fight in a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

Russia uses cluster bombs all over Ukraine - Silence.

Ukraine will use cluster bombs only against military targets, on it's own territory, in recorded locations and not in cities - TRIGGERED

I'll engage with you, just for the fun of it. But why did Amnesty International lose the right to talk about Ukraine last year, is it maybe because they published a report that goes against the Ukrainian propaganda that we have been constantly fed?

They don't have any realistic peace proposals.

Individuals like Sabine Higgins are reductionists and simpletons who see countries as people, and as such "the West" as the villains in their narratives. They see Ukraine as an extension of the West and as such they don't want it to prevail.

They repackage their partisan views as "wanting peace", but realistically they don't have any proposals beyond rewarding Putin with another country's land for his invasion, something that has never stopped him before, whilst inferring it will somehow stop him. And maintain that he is somehow to be trusted when he has broken numerous treaties, agreements and international norms. That he can be believed when he has systematically lied and manipulated the truth for years.

They can't blame the West directly for the invasion so they infer "both sides" started this war. They infer that "both sides" as just as bad as each other. They deliberately frame the conflict as a "territorial dispute" and "proxy war" instead of what it really is. Literally page 1 of the Kremlin propaganda manual.

They have no real solutions, they are, to use the slang, simply campists: A leftist who supports any country/organization simply for being opposed to the United States or the West, including authoritarian governments who would otherwise not follow leftist beliefs.

I understand the sentiment behind Dante's quote, and it definitely grabs your attention. But let's take a step back and really think about what it means. Is it fair to say that anyone who chooses neutrality during a moral crisis deserves the darkest places in hell? I'm not so sure.

Sometimes, staying neutral doesn't mean you're being indifferent or not caring about what's happening. It could be a conscious decision, made after careful consideration, to maintain peace and avoid escalating the conflict. We live in a complex world, and not every moral dilemma has a clear-cut answer. Sometimes, taking sides can even make things worse or lead to unintended consequences.

It's also important to remember that not everyone has the same ability to actively engage in every moral crisis. Factors like personal safety, limited resources, or even lack of information can play a significant role in someone's decision to stay neutral. We shouldn't be so quick to judge without fully understanding the circumstances and limitations people might be facing.

Instead of instantly condemning neutrality, we should recognize that it can provide an opportunity for dialogue, mediation, and finding common ground. By fostering understanding and seeking peaceful resolutions, neutrality can contribute to resolving conflicts and building a better society.

So, while Dante's quote may sound powerful, we should approach it with a grain of salt. Let's strive for empathy, understanding, and thoughtful decision-making when it comes to navigating moral crises. After all, true progress often requires a delicate balance between taking a stand and engaging in constructive dialogue.