Putin: "We had many very legitimate reasons. Ukrainian nazis, US imperialism, NATO expansion."
Tucker: "What will it take for you to stop this war? Will you guarantee peace?"
Putin: "We are a very rational and forgiving people. We ask for nothing but the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. We will treat everyone with respect and we won't meddle with any other country outside Ukraine. KGB spy pinky-promise."
A bot would be nice, but I know it will. Putin will use this interview to sow more division, undermine certainty (whatever is left of it) in an Ukrainian victory and to make himself look reasonable and willing to talk. And Tucker, by virtue of being both part of the new, autocracy-loving breed of conservative and unable to mount any serious push-back against arguments made, will fail entirely in giving proper context to anything Putin will say.
The interview will devolve into pure propaganda for Putin, another link for delusional Russia-supporters to point to and proclaim that the West is responsible for everything and that the whole situation would be fine and dandy, if only Ukraine surrendered.
Great, everyone who lives on the occupied territories looses everything, no police ( prob in prison for or executed), no judges, lawlessness, where random militarily March in without anyone to stop em, that and if we ignore the fact that there are alot of Nazis who hate East Ukrainians and Russians, under perfect conditions the civilans just would need to get out, without anything.
And now imagne how many families would have someone in they're familie who fought on the Russian side. ( as if you remember it was a civilwar 14-20 in the beginnng ).
“Maybe leave Ukraine“, would not stop the war it would just put civilans on the front line.
So you are saying the invasion cannot be stopped or someone with an expired passport won't be able to renew it? Okay then, I guess there is no other option but continue then..
All Russian citizens who moved to Crimea after 2014 should be expelled
That's not quite the same as your claim regarding those who were originally Ukrainian citizens and who would supposedly be forced out. You're contradicting yourself or disregarding your own statement.
There's nothing stopping Ukraine from accepting them as citizens. But that is Ukraine's decision to make, seeing as it's their country. And yes, if they decide that illegal settlers should be kicked out, hell, why were they there to begin with?
Are you talking about the current war, or do you mean that they were there before Russia took Crimea in 2014?
If you mean they were there after 2014, what does that matter, it was still stolen land at that time.
If they were there before 2014, I would agree that some form of a path towards citizenship should be made, but again that is Ukraine's prerogative.
Edit: Reading your second article, that is exactly what Ukraine is proposing, expelling Russians who moved to annexed land after 2014. What about that seems unreasonable? They took a gamble and moved to a conflicted territory, maybe they were led to believe it was their right, but it doesn't change the reality that it wasn't.
About those who where there pre 2014.
They took up Russian citizenship.
Now they count as collaborators and traitors.
If you for example are policemen, doctor or have anything to do with the goverment, under Russian occupation you go to prison, as a traitor.
That does seem like a troubling situation. I do imagine that there are likely quite a few people who took those positions with good intentions, but when the new ruler comes to town and asks who wants power, it does seem obvious that there are strings attached. In this case, the deal was indeed to become a traitor in exchange for power/position, but I'm sure many were signing up just to survive.
You're right, there are probably good people that are going to be harmed alongside the bad, and I don't think there is a perfect solution. I would say it needs to get talked about as we get closer to a peace deal, it's truly regrettable that Russia decided to create this problem, maybe they could also work towards a solution for these citizens they forced into this role.
Edit: purely hypothetical, but one thought comes to mind. A compromise might be acceptable if they were given the choice to either retain their Ukrainian citizenship, but lose their position, or to defect to Russia. Though, once again this realm of decision making lies entirely in the hands of the victor of the war.
You must be a troll checking if anyone is reading the articles you linked, right? This has to be an elaborate joke, right?
Per the very article you linked:
The timeline continues ahead to July 2024, when, according to new Russian laws, residents without Russian citizenship would be considered “foreigners” or “stateless” and can be detained in detention facilities and/or deported to Russia.
It says that there is a Russian law that forces Ukrainans to take on a Russian passport by threatening to deport or incarcerate them for not having a Russian passport! The paragraph describes exactly what you claimed, but for Russia, not Ukraine.
If Ukraine wins. Most civilans living in Crimea and in the occupied territories, as ukraines plan decrees, have to leave the country.
If they somehow still only have the Ukrainian citizenship they are barred from any job that has any ties to the goverment.
Also anyone with a goverment position who helped, so any policemen, doctor, teacher, etc will probability be judged as a collaborator and hence a traitor.
So imagne the regular Ukrainian Army moves in. With some nationalistic hatred that exists. You will have armed men while everyone around em is an enemy, and there is no one to stop you, some people will resort to self justice. Hence the metaphor of putting civilans on the front line.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure Putin doesn't care about those people or anyone not named Putin. He can stop attacking whenever he wants. He won't, because that's admitting weakness.
I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That's actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It'd likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn't like that, I'd love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn't lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There's a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this "historic border" talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn't come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine?
No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they're own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia.
Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn't it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don't see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You're right about that common fear on article 5, I'm hoping it will never be tested haha.
You essentially argue that the brutal invader has to win his illegal invasion during which they bomb and kill countless civilians, because otherwise other civilians that support the illegal and brutal invasion might suffer some consequences?
You can't be for real, noone could argue this in good faith.
civilians that support the illegal and brutal invasion might suffer some consequences?
Like who? Doctors that help the dying? So before Russia was there they had to help the local village people. After Russia came they had to tell em take a hike?
I don't know how you can argue, in good faith that doctors, policemen, teachers, townhall workers, etc. Who just continued workig in they're communities should be punshed.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.
What I did not do. I told you the claim of genocide does not apply as the amount of civilian casualties is lower that other similar scaled modern wars.
Who did I accuse in my counter accusation?
As I say.
Collaborateurs will get what they have coming.
Doctors have a duty to help wounded defenders, policemen have a duty to protect citizens from invaders, teachers must not teach invaders propaganda, townhall workers must not support the logistics and infrastructure of the invader.
If you do you are a traitor and should be punished.
If you are an invader, you must die.
Und wenn du mir auf der Straße über den Weg läufst und deine Lügen und Propaganda verbreitest, wirst du sehen wie ernst ich das meine.
Putin withdrawing army from Ukraine will cause chaos instead of peaceful life - a chaos that would never happen if he continues killing people in this war.
OK. just look at real word examples of the US Afganistan withdrawal. How many civilans do you think got killed? How many deliberately? Rewatch the videos, there is enough videos of people fleeing from the approching army, ( wich noted, is supported by the majority of afganistan ) And dying in they're attemnt. If you want that what happens in Kabul. You apperently don't want what is good for.the civilans.
Are you kidding? You are saying the war is good for civillians.
"Let me invade your country and hold your territories and people hostage so you'll understand that if I stop the aggression then those people will most likely die. I will proceed with my aggression and hold more of your territories and people hostage, and you'll thank me for keeping those people safe" - Putin, probably.
Are you kidding me? Whenever Russia was forced back, torture chambers, deported children, rape and violence done to civilians and mass graves were discovered. And it was Russia that forced the russian passport onto those people. To think that Ukraine would just deport its own citizens into the hell they just were freed from is absolutely ridiculous. To think that the civilians would want to hold on to the russian passport is ridiculous.
Mass civial graves where fake. German TV stations showed clearly military graves and claimed it was civilian. I saw the bodies.
Deported children. What would you do with children in a warzone? Shitty but better then dying due to shellings.
Torture chambers? Yes just as anyone does.
Mass rapes where fake due to the Ukraine's generals attorney not being able to find any evidence of them. ( also they then fired the Ukrainian minister for humanitarian right due to constantly making those up)
Violence was and constantly is done to civilians on the Ukraine's side. Just look at draft videos in Ukriane.
To think that Ukraine would just deport its own citizens into the hell
JL: You’ve described Ukraine as a crime scene. The crimes are widespread and extensive. You don't have infinite resources. So how do you focus the ICC efforts in Ukraine?
KK: You make decisions, which must be informed by many factors: the gravity, the availability of evidence and the need to work at the speed of relevance. This is exactly what we've done in relation to Ukraine, in relation to the public warrants, because of the admissions effectively made by individuals in the Russian Federation, particularly President Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova. We investigated crimes against children and we move forward. And that's the basic approach anywhere else: we look at the most serious crimes. When there's more than one serious crime, we also look at the types of evidence available and start moving. And then we can go deeper, if and when necessary and if and when justified by the evidence.
Mass rapes where fake due to the Ukraine’s generals attorney not being able to find any evidence of them.
The allegation that Russia uses rape systematically couldn't be substantiated. That is something entirely different than claiming that rapes aren't happening.