23
New Polling Shows Significant Ukrainian Support for Diplomacy to End the War
(www.thenation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
23 points (73.5% liked)
World News
31437 readers
1386 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
DPR and LPR have been autonomous since 2014, the heads of the republics made a formal request for assistance from Russia in February after Russia recognized their independence https://www.rt.com/russia/550394-donbass-republics-military-help-putin/
This was intentionally modelled on the precedent NATO set on Yugoslavia where NATO recognized the independence of the breakaway regions and then had them invite NATO for assistance. Russia is just following the legal precedent set by the rules based order we keep hearing about.
I quote yourself:
So again, when was this election held? It's a simple question. I'm not sure why you are avoiding answering it, and instead providing sources about an election held in 2022.
Yes, Donbas has been autonomous and held elections since 2014. These elections have been held regularly. I'm not avoiding answering any of your questions here. You're just doing trolling.
Ok, when were those elections held. It is a simple question you refuse to answer. Can you provide a date?
Are you asking about the dates regular elections that LPR and DPR have or?
You tell me. I'll quote you again:
So when was the election you had in mind that legitimizes the request for intervention.
Yes, I'm talking about general elections that Donbas holds here, not some specific election. The government is elected. The elected government that represents the people of Donbas invited Russia for assistance. What part of this are you struggling with specifically?
I'm struggling with you not being able to provide a date for some election or referendum from before the invasion where the people in any way would have indicated that they wish for an intervention.
As you are unable to do so, I conclude that we agree that the people did indeed not wish to be annexed, so that settles thaz point.
Seems like you're struggling with a concept of how governments work. People elect leaders who make political decisions. Donbas has always had elections, and the elected government invited Russia for help. I hope that one day you'll be able to grok this complex concept.
Are you saying that any action taken by an elected government, even if it e.g. goes against what was promised during the election, and even if it has only e.g. 51% support, by definition has the support of the entire people?
If you don't mean that, then please tell me which election you think indicated that the people wanted to be invaded? Was it the 2012 parliamentary election? Some other election? What exactly about that election result makes you think the people supported the intervention? Wss it the success of some specific candidates or parties with known agendas? Something else?
If you do mean that a government always by definition can do whatever and still represent the people, does that not mean that Russia can end the war no matter the popular opinion?
It would be good to know which of these two opinions you hold.
nice straw man bud
Ok, what is the third option then?
I love how you're hamfistedly trying to set up a loaded question here. Go read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR, and where Donbas comes from originally.
That in no way answers the question.
You yourself mentioned the elections and thst they legitimize the intervention. I want to know in which way? Is it because the intervention was "requested by an elected government" and thus by definition represents the will of the people, or is it because the result of the election reflects the population's desire for an intervention?
But you mow seem to claim there is some third form how the intervention was legitimized that has nothing at all to do with the elections?
So let's take a step back: is the intervention legitimized by an election, and if so, which one, or is it legitimized by the historical composition of the Soviet Union as you now seem to claim?
I was very clear in what I said, if you can't understand what I already wrote then I can't help you.
Yes, you were indeed quite clear. By absolutely refusing to say how elections legitimized the invasion, it is clear elections indeed did not legitimize it. That is why you pivoted to apparently saying that because Ukraine was once part of Russia, the population clearly must want it, even though it was thoroughly rejected already in the 1991 referendum (see how easy it is to mention a specific referenfum).
Believe whatever you like.
I believe what facts show me, not what I want.
You clearly don't care about the facts, and it's not my job to educate you. All this information is publicly available, and if you genuinely cared then you'd learn what's going on instead of trolling here. I just hope that one day you'll be able to look back at what happen and do some introspection, but frankly I doubt that will ever happen.
You are right, it's not your job to educate me. I would, however, hsve thought the purpose of discussing things is to try to convince others you are correct. Generally that is done by e.g. providing facts supported by sources. If all you csn say is "do your own research", then what is the purpose of saying anything at all? If you have no interest in convincing me that I am wrong, why engage at all? I'm genuinly curious. At lest my purpose has been from the start to challenge your viewpoint by trying to understand your arguments by asking clarifying questions, and providing rebuttals bssed on facts (e.g. citing specific articles, referring to specific referendums etc.).
I truly want to understsnd why you think the people of e.g. Donbas would have supported an invssion pre-2014, but when I ask for e.g. what sources you base something on you switch argument.
I tried explaining things to you, but it's pretty clear that all you want to do is regurgitate the talking points you've memorized. You don't actually want to have a discussion, and it's a waste of my time continuing this. Your purpose has been to spew ignorant nonsense, and to pretend that you understand the subject you're woefully ignorant about.
No matter how much information I provide, you're going to continue to weasel, move goal posts, and make straw man arguments. You're not the first troll on the internet, and you're not very original. Bye.
You've tried explaining, but without providing any sources at all, except for "look it up yourself".
I'm truly not sure why you think I have memorized some talking points? Is it maybe because I don't want to move on to the next point until after we have properly dealt with the previous one, including e.g. figuring out what sources your claims sre based on (except just "source: The Internet" which is not even acceptible in grade school).
You provide information, but absolutely refuse to tell what source that information is based on.
Could you please provide sn example of where I have moved goal posts?
Why should I provide more sources when you yourself haven't provided any? I have provided you with numerous sources in this thread already, and you ignored those. Like I already told you, feel free whatever nonsense you want, it won't change the reality of things. You can think of me whatever you like, but I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.
Firstly, if you go back to the beginning of this thread I exactly provide a source that contradicts the original article. So clearly I have provided sources.
Secondly, to paraphrase my mother, "Just because the person you are discussing with is being unproductive, does not mean you have to be". I am trying to understand you, so of course I will try to be productive about it and reach my goal, instead of just being difficult because you are.