For those keeping score:

• Voter fraud: real.
  
• Affordability: hoax.
  
• Climate change: hoax.
  
• Vaccines: hoax.
  
• January 6th: a day of love.
  
• The economy: greatest in the history of the world.
  
• Tariffs: Great success.

Well, we Americans elected him…

That no fraud is found is no argument that it never occurs.

:rofl: In the running for one of the stupidest things I’ve heard on this forum.

“There’s no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, but that’s not an argument that she doesn’t exist.”

And so why then do we think voter fraud exists? Well, Daddy Trump said so.

And he’s right: .0000845% fraud in Arizona over 25 years. About the percentage nationally — not once close to being significant, let alone altering an election— anywhere, ever. But yes, it exists. Easier to round down to 0, but it exists.

So don’t say it doesn’t exist; that’s a fallacy. Believing in something when there’s no evidence—definitely not a fallacy. :up: Welcome to the MAGA cult.

Another stupid solution to a nonexistent problem. Fortunately, congress has not — and will not — pass this idiotic legislation. The SAVE act is dead. Good riddance.

they want illegals to vote — NOS4A2

:lol:

Easy to play games with other people’s lives.

Yes, there is a difference, but for whom does it matter? — Punshhh

It matters to the Ukrainians, certainly—and to Russia. And to anyone who wants to understand the conflict.

Yes— truly gross. This time around going full blown climate denial, and then some. Some say ICE is the worst part of this administration— I think the environmental policies will ruin many more lives, and may just be the death knell for the species as we know it.

Cue the know nothing apologists who ensure us it’s all an exaggeration and we’ll be just fine.

Most of what's in that passage has been squarely debunked, to my knowledge. — AmadeusD

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Not sure I want you know, because it already sounds ridiculous — so never mind.

Not that anyone cares anymore about what this old fumbling idiot has to say, but just for fun;

Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries! — Donald J. Trump · Feb 11, 2026

Doubtful. Some have, many haven’t. He’s a lame duck, and old. Most can’t wait for him to just go away.

Our Trade Deficit has been reduced by 78%, — Donald J. Trump · Feb 11, 2026

Totally made up.

the Dow Jones has just hit 50,000, and the S&P, 7,000, all Numbers that were considered IMPOSSIBLE just one year ago. — Donald J. Trump · Feb 11, 2026

No one— anywhere — thought this was impossible.

the mere mention of the word has Countries agreeing to our strongest wishes. — Donald J. Trump · Feb 11, 2026

Like who? Palau?

What an imbecile.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-epa-greenhouse-gases-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.PbSz.ScA2rJb7G2rb&smid=url-share

Trump Administration Erases the Government’s Power to Fight Climate Change

Never have I seen people so committed to destroying the prospects of human life.

I guess I’m one of the few who never really cared that much about Jeffrey Epstein. I think he trafficked women and was a sleazeball and fraud, but other than a handful of people truly guilty of participating, I don’t get the hysteria. Doesn’t look like Trump did anything terrible, or many others in there. Much like Madoff, he fooled many high profile people.

But I do like to see Trump get irritated by the persistence of those who turned the story into something much bigger than it is.

The article spells out NATO membership in all but name. So after another 10years or so after the war has finished, it will be formally recognised. — Punshhh

No, and no.

As I say, a member in all but name — Punshhh

Well, what can I say? You’re just not paying attention. The difference is real, and it matters.

How is occupying part of Ukraine going to prevent Ukraine joining NATO? — Punshhh

You want me to explain it to you? Why not Google it?

https://www.cfr.org/articles/neutrality-alternative-ukraines-membership-nato

During war and with territorial disputes, it’s very unlikely NATO accepts members. Even if it’s agreed that everything Russia has occupied becomes part of Russia, it’s still extremely unlikely that the western parts become NATO members. NATO membership is dead for Ukraine— there’s no way around it.

Philosophy Forum itself wanted to interview one Epstein contact, namely Noam Chomsky. (If I remember correctly, Chomsky declined the PF interview because of his ill health.) — ssu

For the record: he agreed and was about to do it, but had a stroke before he was able to.

Also worth noting that to anyone who knows anything about Chomsky, his relationship with Epstein is a nothingburger. The only people trying to make something out of it are people with axes to grind. Show me he was involved in the trafficking in any way and I’ll certainly change my mind— But won’t hold my breath.

But Putin’s actions worked against this becoming a possibility. — Punshhh

Not really.

. Alternatively perhaps Putin is planning to prevent Ukraine joining NATO by either occupying part of Ukraine, — Punshhh

:up:

Putin is cementing his dictator status in Russia on a par with Stalin — Punshhh

He’s very little like Stalin, actually.

Either he is insane, or he has another agenda. — Punshhh

Yes, like keeping Ukraine a buffer state and not allowing missiles on Russia’s border. Would it be insane if Trump invaded Mexico if China were conducting military drills, supplying weapons, and discussing a military alliance?

Watching Super Bowl. God this one sucked. Boring.

Not at all. I’ve learned a lot from others here. But that’s because there are others who know something about the topics I’m drawn to. When I enter a discussion, I at least show the basic courtesy of familiarizing myself with the subject, including arguments for and against, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments. What I don’t do is show up, repeat a tired slogan, and then demand I’m placed on equal status with other members. It would be embarrassing to do that.

You do so often. Why, I don’t know. But don’t expect much when you do.

And just in case ANYONE is reading along, I’ll be lazy and quote a simple Wikipedia entry— not as definitive proof, but just to demonstrate what’s out there and perhaps give one pause before assuming a cut-and-dried narrative…

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing,[19][20] intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites.[21] The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee[22] and commission of inquiry,[21] the International Association of Genocide Scholars,[23][24] multiple human rights groups,[c] numerous genocide studies and international law scholars,[30][31] and other experts

You showed me evidence of why it's not a genocide. — AmadeusD

:lol: Your denial knows no bounds. If you really think what I quoted shows how the Gaza genocide isn’t a genocide, or that it supports the argument that population increase negates the possibility of genocide — I won’t bother.

Complete ignorance of any counter-argument to such a well-worn claim in today’s world of google and YouTube is enough to tell me you not only have a superficial understanding of this conflict (and that’s being generous), but don’t care to learn about it. That’s also not my fault. I posted a brief article about your ignorant claim and its historical application to even the Nakba. You can start there if you like.

Or you can continue posturing, as always.

I can’t imagine you really know anything about this topic either, but given your constantly bad guesswork I now question whether I’m right. Thanks anyway though— I definitely care about your approval.

I also suggest, strongly, you do not attempt to comment on nuanced legal situations. — AmadeusD

I’m sorry that you have so little understanding of what you claim to be a “professional” in. That’s not my fault. Given the genocide convention, it’s amazing to not only make the claim you did, but seemingly sticking to it after being shown how stupid it is. Oh well — I suggest keeping your mouth shut about stuff you don’t understand. Stick to whatever you actually do. :up:

These are the same types that would have vehemently opposed those trying to stop the Holocaust, reserving the harshest language for their unlawfulness and crimes while ignoring or minimizing the actual atrocities. And we know why: they either deny it’s happening or don’t care. — Mikie

When Israeli propaganda becomes so absurd that even its target audience raises an eyebrow, the need arises to imbue it with a pseudo-scientific sheen. At the end of the day, apologists for Israel aren’t actually going to do any research on the matter before absorbing it into their repertoire of mythology; all a talking point needs to accomplish is to sound plausible, regardless of how false it is. After all, this is about making claims, not reflecting reality.

https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/population-growth-ethnic-cleansing/

For those truly interested in this stupid, lazy and racist claim. TL/DR: population increase does not mean no genocide. Regardless, there are statistics that say the population has actually decreased since the genocide began. Worth reading.

Btw, definition of genocide (for anyone interested in international law):

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, 1948.

“Legal professional.” Well I’ll just say that your legal acumen is in keeping with the rest of your posts. I credit you for at least not even pretending to be a lawyer.

Gaza pop increased from 1.4mil to 2.3 mil from 2009-2023. — AmadeusD

Repeating tired, embarrassing talking points like this is likewise in keeping with how “serious” you are. For someone who knows so little about anything, you sure do guess the wrong side consistently.

But no matter. Keep up the good work of genocide apologism and selective outrage. I post only to counter propaganda; you’re otherwise irrelevant.

But you are assuming Putin is sane, what he has done is insane. — Punshhh

Exactly— you assume he’s insane. Which is so ridiculous it’s unbelievable it’s seriously argued.

When did he become insane exactly? When he invaded Ukraine? Or Crimea? Before then, what? Because nobody was saying he was insane back then.

Much like the use of “terrorist”, these have become codes for essentially anything we don’t like. Meanwhile, Mohammed bin Salman is considered sane, and gets invited to the White House. They’re just fine until they go against US interests. Then they’re evil maniacs bent on destroying the world.

That Pro-Russian leader could have been Victor Medvedchuk, who is a close friend of Vladimir Putin. How close can be seen from the fact that after the Ukrainian SBU arrested him, he was handed over to Russia in a prisoner-of-war exchange. — ssu

Yeah, the idea of a puppet regime or regime change is also nonsense. Covered long ago. You’re just reducing yourself to repeating what you’ve heard from the usual propaganda, so I’ll just copy and paste from 4 years ago:

These allegations, however, severely lacked details and, by all accounts, failed to meet basic thresholds of plausibility. Having trickled into the public discourse, the identification of elites purported to be Russia’s next handpicked puppet leader in Kyiv had risen to the level of comedic absurdity among the Ukrainian population. More significantly, the disclosures mimicked amateur and speculative guesswork. In fact, there was no trace or resemblance to a threat assessment that had undergone the traditional intelligence cycle. “Complete nonsense,” said a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker. “A lot of the people who are named as members of this future government aren’t even on speaking terms with each other,” he continued. “It’s a random group of names.” The head of research at a Kyiv-based think tank believed it to be “poorly thought-out” and “absolutely absurd,” saying such a regime “will not be supported by Ukrainian society.”

Instead of busy plotting a coup, Yevhen Murayev, alleged by the U.K. to potentially lead this pro-Russian government, was on vacation with his family on a tropical island. ”At first,” he said, “I thought it was some kind of prank.” Oddly, Murayev was no longer an ally of Russia. Years prior, Moscow sanctioned him after a falling out with another conspirator alleged by the U.S., Viktor Medvedchuk, who since May 2021 had been under house arrest for treason as part of the government’s crackdown on the Russophone opposition. “It isn’t very logical,” said Murayev, “I’m banned from Russia. Not only that but money from my father’s firm there has been confiscated.” Unsurprisingly, his party failed to gain a single seat in parliament in the previous election. Alleged by U.S. officials, another candidate was Oleg Tsaryov—a former parliamentarian who described himself to be the “most hated man in Ukraine after Putin.” Tsaryov left Ukraine and politics altogether in 2015. “This is a pretty funny situation,” he said, “Look at me. I’m not even invited to speak on [Russian] state TV because I’m not important enough. I’m a sanatorium director in Yalta.” Truly, Tsaryov runs three wellness clinics on the Black Sea. A fourth candidate was Ukraine’s former premier, Mykola Azarov, who despite being forced to flee the country in 2014, was now 74 years old, no less. “How can I defend myself against the allegation when nobody has provided any evidence against me?,” he said in frustration, “I can’t even sue the British, because they phrased it very carefully. They haven’t directly accused me of being involved, just that some people may have been thinking of using me.”

The purpose of the U.S. and U.K. allegations, however, was not to reflect reliable intelligence. Otherwise, such publicization would’ve been prohibited to protect sources and methods, especially when lacking inroads into reading Russia’s intentions. Instead, the disclosures and leaks represented a disinformation operation to harden deterrence-by-denial. By preempting a plan’s mere possibility, they believed its implementation would become more complicated and drive up its costs. “Calling it (i.e. regime change) out takes away the element of surprise and also reduces the chances of Russia succeeding if they actually attempt it,” said a Western official in January 2022, speaking on condition of anonymity.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correcting-toward-diplomacy-ukraine-crisis-204171

It makes no sense. The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

It’s definitely obvious — in Western propaganda anyway.

Ramzy Mardini said it best:

Needless to say, Putin started an illegal and unjustified war. Yet, to enable a course correction toward a diplomatic solution, it’s the Western-based narrative about the war that requires a repudiation.

Take, for instance, the purported certainty in the West that Russia’s military sought to conquer a heavily populated and fervently nationalistic country nearly the size of Texas—and initially, intended to do so in a matter of days, no less. This belief is entirely baseless. In fact, even the U.S. military is incapable of pulling off such a feat in that little time. And yet, the falsehood, which formed the West’s perception of Russia’s intentions, remains unabated. So too is Washington’s incessant deflection of holding any responsibility for provoking the invasion, despite its ubiquitous and escalatory involvement in the precipitating crisis.


[…]

As for designs to upend and overturn the Ukrainian government, there’s no credible indication that foreign-imposed regime change was the pursued goal, let alone a political objective considered feasible by Russian leaders. What’s more, from a military perspective, neither the conditions in Ukraine nor Russia’s own capacity to overcome those obstacles supports the conventional wisdom of an intent to conquer it.

For instance, the reported estimates of Russia’s mobilization on the eve of war ranged from 100,000 to 190,000 personnel. Even at its peak deployment, it remains too small of a force to achieve conquest in Ukraine, let alone sustain a military occupation to safeguard a puppet regime in Kyiv. A modern country of 44 million, Ukraine is also the largest landmass after Russia on the European continent. In addition, its military was more recently upgraded—rebuilt, armed, and trained by NATO. With active military personnel at 200,000 and even a larger reserve force to boot, it can inflict tremendous costs, especially when under the belief they are fighting for the country’s survival. In the event of toppling the regime, the potential for a potent Ukrainian insurgency composed of military veterans is certain. Not only is nationalism a powerful political force in Ukraine—and anti-Russian in its ideological orientation—but it also borders multiple NATO states, which could lend support against a Russian occupying power.

To put it mildly, such conditions render a military occupation of Ukraine more arduous and taxing than the U.S. military experience in Iraq. In fact, this gap isn’t even close.

On top of the gargantuan military obstacles, their political counterpart also deems regime change an implausible goal. In fact, there’s no genuine sign Russia was even attempting to organize a political project to install in Ukraine in the first place. Moscow had neither tried to form an alternative government in exile nor was there any semblance of political opposition inside Ukraine ready to take the reins of governance. All the more, no part of the existing security apparatus of Ukraine, or any state institution for that matter, could realistically be co-opted in partnership with a Russian occupation. By itself, this nullifies the model of leadership decapitation alleged by U.S. and UK officials as Russia’s plan to install a puppet government. In Ukraine, any effort to impose regime change would require a purge and recreation of the state in its entirety.

There has to be an defined outcome beneficial to Russia. — ssu

There is: prevent the US from making Ukraine a western bulwark. No NATO explanation into Ukraine, no weapons and drills and military presence on their borders. The rest, in terms of wrecking Ukraine, is pretty obvious: the damage inflicted on Ukraine has been enormous, from their infrastructure and economic stability to general morale.

Mikie, Ukraine was part of Russia. What on earth are you blabbering about? — ssu

Comments like these are cringey, considering it’s you who looks foolish in this conversation, repeating tired and long-refuted propaganda and making ridiculous contradictory statements.

Try reading what was written before making childish remarks. The intention was never to conquer Ukraine— it wasn’t then, it isn’t now. The simple geography of Ukraine shows that — because Putin isn’t a moron. That you’re pretending I don’t understand Russian/Ukrainian history because you’ve misread a paragraph is embarrassing.

What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.
— Mikie

Your just living in your own estranged echo-chamber. Putin has annexed parts of Ukraine. He wants more territory that isn't in his control. And he has broken peace agreements earlier, remember the Minsk agreements?

But for you those all events that have taken place are "myths". — ssu

So you’re avoiding it again. I’ll just repeat:

1. You said you take what Putin says seriously, and that you don’t have to see into his soul.
2. I quote Putin.
3. You then say what Putin said was not worth taking seriously.

I can quote the whole exchange again if you’d like. But again I ask: do you take what he says seriously or not?

So they planned on invading, taking a chunk of the country, and then how were they going to prevent a resistance movement forming from the remaining chunk of Ukraine funded by Europe and the U.S. ala N. Vietnam infiltrating S. Vietnam? And also what was Russia going to do when that remaining chunk of Ukraine inevitably drifted into NATO's orbit? — RogueAI

I really don’t understand what you’re asking here. Putin was pretty clear about his objectives. I don’t recall claiming anything about them planning for exactly what’s happened. How is that possible? If they could foresee the resistance in Kiev, I’m sure they would have shifted their strategy there, for example. No one has claimed they had a crystal ball.

Who said anything about them planning on losing a million soldiers?

So the plan was to take only part of Ukraine? What were the Russians planning on doing when the non-annexed part of Ukraine violently objected to all that and America and Europe saw a golden opportunity to fund a Ukranian resistance movement? — RogueAI

Since this is exactly what’s happened, I don’t think we need to guess. The Ukrainians have resisted, with considerable (and crucial) support from the US and Europe, and yet Russia has taken parts of Ukraine. That’s how things currently stand.

And as said several times, I believe the goal here was to pretty much sow chaos and wreck Ukraine.

Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine?
— Mikie

If Putin attacked, it simply means that he was confident to achieve his goals. That should be obvious even to you. If Ukraine hadn't been able to recover the territory from the Kremlin-backed insurgents in the Donbas, so to Putin likely Ukraine looked like a push over. The US had retreated from Afghanistan in a humiliating way, so no worry of them responding angrily. And Putin had bragged on a phone to a German leader that he would have his tanks in hours in Kyiv. Evidently he had bad intel, which can be seen from the fact that he fired many of the FSB personnel responsible of Ukraine after the attack had gone awry. — ssu

I’m not sure why this is difficult, but conquering Ukraine and attacking Kiev is not the same thing. Kiev was attacked, yes. You take this as evidence that Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I told you what I believe the goals were— to create chaos in Ukraine and make a mess of things. So attacking Kiev makes sense— even if it wasn’t a success.

And please just answer this simple question: If Putin wants territory of Ukraine, why are you repeatedly insisting about Putin not wanting Ukraine? — ssu

Because Ukraine isn’t a monolith. The areas Putin wants are culturally and politically different from the others — and conquering Ukraine world entail ALL of them being under Russian control. That isn’t the case now, and wasn’t the case then. It’s simply a myth. One that you’re gradually backing away from even in this conversation. Now you disregard Putin’s words and go from talking about conquering Ukraine to “wanting” some Ukrainian territory.

So he didn't say directly there in that that Russia will conquer Ukraine, that's your argument for Russia not wanting to have Ukraine if Ukraine defenses would have collapsed. — ssu

You’re the one who said you took his words seriously, not me:

Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

So clearly that was nonsense. What you meant was: I take what Putin says seriously if it corresponds to what I want to believe. That’s not interesting to me.

So we ignore their words and the military reality, and go with our favorite narrative based on preconceived notions. No thanks.

I agree with not taking what Putin says too seriously. I was responding to someone who claims they do—yet what they’re really doing is cherrypicking.

What I care about is looking at what makes sense to the Russians in terms of power. Bush said lots of stuff about invading Iraq— and some of it was true, but we easily ignored that. The main reason was oil. Putin has said lots of things about Ukraine (but never that he wanted to conquer it, btw) and some of the things he said were true, but we can ignore a lot of it too. What they don’t want is the US on their doorstep. And they, unlike Venezuela or some other country that can be easily bullied and overthrown on a whim by the US, actually have leverage to prevent this from happening. That’s what this is about. Not some stupid story about the evil imperialist who wants to conquer Europe.

In fact if you want to weaken Russia, you should be encouraging the conquering of Ukraine and Eastern Europe. It would be the stupidest thing that could do.

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?
— Mikie
And how much do you know of the history of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic's? — ssu

So you can’t answer that question, got it.

I’ll ask again: do those words count or not? I’m guessing the answer is no, they don’t count. Only the words that fit your narrative counts.

This is absolute nonsense. And Putin's idea that Ukraine should be part of Russia is in his famous text that you can find following this link: Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ — ssu

Where does he say he wants to conquer Ukraine? Where? In fact, in conclusion he states:

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will
say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

More words that don’t count, right?

So far, 0 statements on conquering Ukraine from Putin (whose words you take seriously) and 0 evidence from military actions. Keep trying.

First of all, NATO enlarged because and only because of the Russian conventional attack on Ukraine February 2022. — ssu

Nato expanded greatly from 1992 onward. The fact They wanted to include Ukraine 20 years ago is a large part of this conflict.

So we have (1) Putin’s statements and the statements of officials before and after the invasion, and (2) military action. Neither support conquering Ukraine. You, however, point to (3) motives and intentions, about how “obvious” it all is. But you have no clue what you’re talking about. Think for a second. What happened in Afghanistan? Do you think Putin is unaware of this? Look at the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Look at the cultural distribution in Ukraine from West to East. Look at the language. Look at the number of troops used in February of 2022— do you think that was enough to conquer Ukraine? Etc.

The goal was never to conquer Ukraine. That’s ridiculous propaganda. The goal, unless a deal is reached, is to destroy most of Ukraine. Make it a complete mess. That’s so far been achieved— albeit with a great price paid. But it’s clear — after years of people like you telling everyone Ukraine was winning or about to win — that Russia has achieved its goals and that Ukraine has continuously lost territory. Given that reality, Russia will not accept anything less than what they’ve demanded for years. Much like Crimea, those eastern territories are now gone.

If the US didn’t continually attempt to turn Ukraine into a western “bulwark,” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s just the fact of the case. If China were running military drills in Mexico, and the US reacted, I’d likewise put most of the blame on China.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so.
— Mikie
@Mikie, read actually what Putin has said to be the reasons that Ukraine should be part of Russia prior to the attack. And for crying out loud, they attempting to conquer Ukraine. They thought they would have the power, because they thought that Ukraine wouldn't fight back as hard as it has. You simply cannot deny this reality.

It's not a matter of making sense. For you and me it doesn't make sense, but for Putin it makes perfect sense. And this isn't something debatable anymore as Russia has already fought the war for several years and already has annexed parts of Ukraine. So this talking about "it doesn't make sense" is totally irrelevant. — ssu

Annexing parts of Ukraine and conquering Ukraine are different things. The latter makes no sense and hasn’t been attempted. Which is why you can give no evidence for it, verbally or militarily.

That's what they have stated, which you either are ignorant about or willingly put aside. Because what Putin himself says and writes obviously seems not to matter to you. Well, what the leader of a state publicly declares does matter for me. — ssu

Oh, does it? Or just the parts you want to hear and interpret as imperialism?

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime. How can we respond to that?

Do these words count, or should they be ignored?

Since you care so much about what they actually say, this should matter. The fact is that Putin has never claimed he wanted to conquer Ukraine, and thus there has never been a plan to do so, and thus you’ve never seen it done. He’s also made statements that establishing the old order is stupid, although an understandable sentiment.

Look at what has been said and, more importantly, been done (as well as the military reality on the ground) — and your narrative is made up of nothing more than fluff.

This is a good example of media storytelling. It makes sense, it has kernels of truth to it, and it’s comforting — especially if one presupposes Putin is an evil (and foolish) man. But of course it isn’t accurate.

I would have probably believed all that myself 30 years ago, but listening to dissident voices on the subject has been enlightening. I suggest doing so carefully, if you haven’t already. It doesn’t have to be Sachs or Mearsheimer — although they’re very helpful. Compare the facts that they point out to what you’re hearing from other sources. It’ll be interesting. Especially about military and economic numbers.

has already gone over some of this— and it’s true that this has been gone over so many times it’s tiresome to retread.

But the actual words and actions of the Russian seem not to matter here. — ssu

That’s exactly what matters. Notice that they’ve never said they wanted to conquer Ukraine and, unsurprisingly, never tried to.

The only one ignoring that is you. Instead, you cite “true motives and intentions.” But even that fails, because it makes no sense from their point of view. Unless one presupposes the Russians are both evil AND stupid, the idea of conquering Ukraine is absurd.

You should make the case just why "Russians didn't want to conquer Ukraine" — ssu

The Russians have been clear about what they’ve wanted. You disregard that— fine. It’s usually best to ignore official state bullshit. Look at the US in Iraq, etc. But it goes beyond that— the US wanted to control the oil in Iraq, and made up a bunch of nonsense trying to capitalize on the 9/11 wave of public deference. They wanted that oil for years.

Russia has likewise been telegraphing this move in Ukraine for years. I don’t like what they did either— you shouldn't invade another country. But if you take a second to try to put yourself in their shoes, given the geopolitical reality of the world, it makes sense. Putin isn’t a moron.

It doesn’t make sense to conquer Ukraine. First, they don’t have the military power to do so. Second, western Ukraine is different from eastern Ukraine, so annexing those regions would be an even costlier endeavor than what they’ve annexed so far — and that’s been a struggle itself and taken several years now. It would also be a waste when you get exactly the same result by doing what they’ve already done. NATO expansion is now off the table.

The myth of an evil Putin bent on conquering Eastern Europe and reestablishing the USSR is justification to absolve the US of their hand in this, and to continue the enormous amount of cash being thrown at this proxy war. The winners? Mostly the arms industry.

You say “wrong, there isn’t,” then provide 0 evidence.

The Russians didn’t want to conquer Ukraine. That is a myth, and a stupid one, which you seem to swallow whole. This has been gone over many times. It would not only be strategically stupid, and against the stated goals, but also militarily impossible.

But you go with your direct window into Putin’s soul.

Just picture yourself still believing that the 2020 election was stolen (now whittled down to the last hope: maybe something happened in Georgia!). Imagine it. Then have someone thump your head with a stone.