Quote from: Alik Bahshi on August 20, 2025, 09:42:21 AM

Quote from: caroasi on August 19, 2025, 01:04:03 PM

Quote from: Alik Bahshi on August 19, 2025, 08:12:27 AM

Alik Bahshi

Putin's Appeasement

Trump seems to have kept his promise to stop the war between the victim of aggression - Ukraine and the aggressor - Russia, which annexed part of Ukrainian territory. The main thing is not just to stop it, but to formalize its result with a peace treaty between the victim and the aggressor, a more accurate definition of which is appeasement. Something like this has already happened once, known as Chamberlain's appeasement. It's a pity that F. Roosevelt did not think to do the same in 1941-1942, in principle, he had a chance to negotiate with the fascist Hitler about peace and get ahead of Trump in peacekeeping, saving millions of lives, leaving behind the Holocaust, and in the case of Ukraine, Putin's assertion about the non-existence of the Ukrainian people as such.

By the way, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan also signed an agreement, not about peace, but about a ceasefire, which was temporary, that is, fundamentally different from the agreement proposed by Trump after his meeting with the fascist Putin in Alaska. (1,2)

1. Trump's deal with Conscience. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/138677.html
2. Hitler's ghost is haunting Europe. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/38049.html

08/19/2025

Explain how Russia was the aggressor including refutation of their counterarguments. The focus of contention is of course the claim by Russia that Ukraine was sending troops to their border area. Is a build-up of troops by one's border is generally considered by military strategists to be an action of aggression towards another country? How does that apply to this specific situation? I have yet to see a clear statement of facts that leads to a definite conclusion, but I'm confident you can offer the best available case.

I am not going to explain what is known to all, that Russia crossed the established borders of the independent state of Ukraine, while being the guarantor of their inviolability according to the Budapest Memorandum. And if you do not understand this, then you have a problem with logical thinking, and with this you need to see a doctor.

You have chosen to avoid the question in regards to the troop build up against Russia from Ukraine's border rather than explaining what "everyone knows" which presumably somehow included me even though I'm the one who asked that question. If everyone knew that, then times when I asked would result in a direct answer, rather than a dodge. Everyone knows 1+1=2 but if I asked enough people rest assured there would be someone brave enough to just answer the question. It is an important issue that deserves to be addressed head on, not avoided.

What you seem to be missing is that since the troop build-up is a generally accepted fact, that actually that gives you a burden of proof to show that it was not a threat to Russia and they were wrong to consider it a threat.

If someone asked me about a topic I've done hundreds of hours of research on, I'd be very happy to share my knowledge and cite my sources. If instead I failed to do so and simply told them to either entirely accept my conclusion or they should visit a hospital, which is not a place for learning about wars at all, then that would be most likely because I was emotionally bound to my conclusion for reasons I couldn't explain or defend and just wanted them to go away, and just wanted people to respond if they agreed with me. One of the least likely reasons is that I had the answer at my fingertips and simply wanted to verbally bully others who are less knowledgeable although it is within the realm of possibility.

Another thing to consider is that people who respond to internet posts are vastly more likely to be someone will respond if they disagree. That is because not because people are constantly wrong, its because there is no content in just saying "I agree". When you respond with personal attacks even if indirect to other people who could be reading the thread, you are actually providing a reason for people to disagree and distance them selves from your position because of the ad hominem fallacy of name calling rather than supporting your position.

And when you put all of this together, you can guess that wherever I stood before on the issue, I have moved further away rather than towards your position, which is likely the opposite of your intention. So once again, there is a long chain of events leading to the war which included an apparently aggressive act against Russia by Ukraine. And, that needs to be explained by more than telepathy of "everyone" just knowing the answer. Other people may not feel a need to adopt your values as their values. What is important to you, the Ukraine war, doesn't need to be important to them. So I also disagree that anyone who isn't informed about any specific topic should visit a hospital. The reasoning you are using is a bit too self-centered regardless of how sound and "obvious" it is.