2. In case of Georgia Kremlin never made claims that the aim is full military subjugation of the country; Kremlin made such claims in case of Ukraine, repeatedly.
@liilliil@midgephoto Zhirinovskij is not Kremlin. I said Kremlin. Also, there was no actual attempt to take Tbilisi, whereas there was an actual attempt to take Kyiv.
1. Kremlin loves misdirection. So far there had not been any negotiations in good faith from Kremlin. And I am including the Minsk accords, which were negotiated and signed, and then ignored and broken by the Kremlin.
2. Look, we can split hairs all you want here. The aim of Kremlin is for Ukraine not to exist, and it's been shown time and again.
@rysiek@midgephoto 1. If the Kremlin is so eager to destroy Ukraine, why were the negotiations in the spring of 2022? 2. It was 30 kilometers to Tbilisi when it was said Safeword
As has later come to light, the negotiations then (after eight years of war) was to formalise Ukrainian loss of eastern areas and the status of the remaining stub as a satellite with with limited autonomy.
You could as well say that the coup of Hawaii was legit because the successor polity exists as an US state.
Also it's fundamental for the fiction of Russia as the successor state of the Kievan Rus¹ to hold Ukraine, instead of client state of mongols.
I suppose this leads to need to be part of "Europe". _ ¹ it is not unheard that empires use names and/or creative interpretation of history as justification of destiny.² ² The USA13 expanding west while breaking countless treaties and practicing genocide under idea that they were "America" and Americans were "Indians".
@liilliil@midgephoto right and "such uniforms can be bought in any sports shop", I remember that as well.
Kremlin was also a signatory of Budapest Memorandum, where it guaranteed Ukraine's territorial sovereignty in return for Ukraine giving away post-Soviet nuclear weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
@rysiek@midgephoto The Kremlin was not a party to the Minsk agreements, it was their guarantor. The ceasefire agreement was signed between Ukraine and the eastern regions of Ukraine
@iju@rysiek@midgephoto This has already been done in Minsk. Ukraine has pledged to abandon a military solution to the problem of the eastern lands and to enter into negotiations with them. Somehow everyone forgets that part of history and commitment
I mean, if you want to have your own version of history, have fun and good luck. But this is a part of the world I come from, and I know it's history well.
I provided you with receipts on a few occasions. You can either engage with them, or not. Up to you. 🤷♀️
I have no desire to argue with propaganda stamps, I want to understand the legal side of the issue and the real danger for Ukraine.
At the time of its creation as an independent country from a Soviet republic, Ukraine committed itself to neutrality and non-aligned status. This was the reason for their giving up nuclear weapons
If we don't agree on basic facts like these, I don't see why we should continue this conversation. If we agree on such basic facts, it's clear it's not Ukraine at fault.
@rysiek@midgephoto yes, Mike I know they sent their troops there. Unfortunately, it's not the first time. However, we are deviating from the main topic: their maniacal desire to destroy Ukraine. Is it real or not
@liilliil@midgephoto so, Russia sent troops there in violation of the Budapest Memorandum, where it promised to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty.
It then stirred up a conflict in Donbas, and then became a "neutral" guarantor of the Minks Agreements.
And then sent more troops into Donbas.
And then began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, almost encircling Kyiv, and broadcasted rhetoric claiming Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are not a real nation, and so on.
@liilliil@midgephoto seriously though, I don't care if it's "maniacal" or whatever else. Kremlin's goal in this war was to make Ukraine into a Russian client state again, one way or another. It's visible in their actions, their words, the narratives they push out into the world.
Again, you may disagree, but by your responses in this thread, you never really engaged with this topic honestly.
I provided plenty of receipts for what I was talking about. I think we're done here. :blobcatcoffee:
@liilliil the "original name" of Istanbul was Lygos, and yet we recognize the right of the people who live there to call it whatever they very well please – and insist we also call it such.
So when Ukrainians tell me they prefer Kyiv to be called Kyiv, I call it Kyiv. It's just common decency.
incidentally, denying this kind of basic agency to Ukrainians is a mainstay of Kremlin's propaganda around this war.
The real ORIGINAL name of the city is "Кыѥвъ", and not “Kyiv” or “Київ" This is to the question of “invaders and colonizers” and lecturing about spelling
@rysiek That's a great example. Istanbul is now home to your favorite invaders and colonists. Who you were condemning just earlier, apologize and comply.
@maxwainwright I don't think it would have worked at all, to be honest.
I understand, and to a large degree share, the frustration. But losing one's temper and calling people names is just not a good strategy of dealing with that kind of stuff.
@rysiek sure, sorry about that. I was trying to make a point, not just be mean (if that is any consolation). It would have worked better (or: at all) if i had called him “Doug” or something 🙃.
@rysiek no, you’re completely right. Not sure if “dealing with” is a good descriptor of what I was trying to do though. Just expressing some rage. But it’s better to redirect it into something productive, or at least destructive. 🙃