Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

[mrttao]

And you are an utterly reprehensible piece of shit and a disgrace.

No, you are.

Morality is determined by the well documented and known results of your choices. (consequentialism)

You are the one who is in favor of chanting "this is not my fault. I am still a good person" while you condemn countless people to death, torture, rape, and generations of ethnic war. You are fully aware of this, but choose to use doublethink to deny reality.

I am the one who studied history and identified that there is a proven to work method of dealing with conquered enemies that absolutely minimizes the amount of harm done. Targets most of the harm towards cultural constructs (thus sparing as many humans as possible)

This means I am the good guy and you are a stupid evil hypocrite.

 

[Cherico]

war is hell.


And as much as I hate to say it, the history of the world is not a nice one.

cultural assimilation is actually when you look at history one of the nicer outcomes for conquered peoples.

Genocides, Mass slavery and other outcomes have been pretty common. Personally I would prefer to have a system where local peoples have some kind of autonomy under an overarching structure like the holy roman empire but you really cant do something like that in a modern period where the state is so massive and intrusive in peoples lives.

What happened to the native american's wasn't nice, but looking at the long range of history tribal warfare is fucking brutal as hell with casulity rates of more then 20% being not uncommon. America's conquest of the america's while brutal did create lasting peace much like china's conquest of itself, and russia's expansion.

But the fact is.

Russia's played out.

They spent generations either in bloodsoaked conflict or commiting national and cultural sucide, they simply do not have what it takes to be a good hedgemon maybe if they had avoided communism maybe this maybe that but demographically their fucked, their industry is pretty much increasingly obsolute, their leadership cadre is aging into death and their fundamentals are horrible.

Even in the case they win big all of their internal issues means they just end up collapsing anyways and creating an even bigger mess in its wake. If they lose and lose big in Ukraine then that limits the damage they do as they collapse.

 

[mrttao]

My current best guess, is that Russia will soon collapse.
Ukraine will leverage its new military capabilities to swallow it, and maybe some neighbors (under the cause of them being russia supporters).
While building up a more modern economy with NATO help.

Ukraine will culturally erase them the same way Russia is trying to culturally erase ukraine. Because Ukrainians are not cucks.
Western MSM will memory hole it and nobody will object or care.

If such a greater Ukraine manages to slip the noose of globohomo and actually puts its citizen's first, Ukraine First country. Then suddenly western MSM will change their tune and will start blasting that "ukraine are nazies who literally genocided the poor russians" and other propaganda

If greater ukraine fails to slip the noose. it will start falling into western degeneracy of castrating their boys and mass grooming and so on.

 

[Megadeath]

All the disgusting advocacy for genocide as the "nicest" way to mop up after wars of conquest and arguing the moral rectitude of it are ignoring the simple and obvious fact that wars of conquest are themselves blatantly immoral. The simplest, best and most moral position is "Don't go and murder your neighbours because you want their shit."

If the only way to get more people to follow your beliefs/ideology/politics/cult leader etc. is to murder anyone who'd fight you over it, and then rape the remainder, tear apart their families and force them into subjugation, maybe it's not an idea worth following in the first place.

Hopefully obviously, that doesn’t conclude that all war is inherently immoral. Though it's never a good thing, sometimes the use of force can be morally justified. War as a form of intervention, for the sake of liberation, and even as a proactive defence can be morally justified.

Also @mrttao you're either forgetting or ignoring the simple golden rule of morality, your "study of history" has clearly not paid enough attention to the vile and horrendous things that have been done in the name of "the greater good" and you're a failed person. Whether by learning the wrong lessons or some natural disease of the mind, you are missing something vital that makes a decent person. I'd pity you, if I could only look past how much you disgust me.

 

[Agent23]

The cry of butthurt third worlders in Europe and illegal South Americans in USA.
The answer should be the same in either case. They are free and in fact encouraged to leave if they think it's so bad for them out there.

"Totally not Russian Empire, just a little empire, for now, and then we will see" is not much of a counter argument, and definitely not a convincing one.

When did they sign the NPT?


Dude, NPT didn't even exist when France did. The only country that went nuclear after the Cold War with its distractions and on top of that after signing and leaving NPT is.... North Korea. Yeah...

Yeah, pick fights with allies over stupid shit to make a point to enemies, as if anyone gives a shit what you think.

Congratulations to our diplomacy, screw you. You talked about realpolitik, this is successful realpolitik in practice.

Spare me the advertising brochure. And yet they are stuck in the several times poorer Ukraine now... Which doesn't have NATO gold membership card even.

Spare me the propaganda too. We have millions of said " Orthodox and cirillic-using Slavs" volunteering to live here since years, somehow they aren't running to Russia. What next, are you going to bring up some stories of Polish noblemen whipping poor orthodox peasants in the fields as if it was somehow relevant?

>Rants about migrants.
> Is gleeful that there are lots of economic migrants in his country on account of it being EU-integrated.
Which one, bronekokoshka?
Yeah, maybe it is because of this thing called the EU, I am pretty sure that if things sour economically for you you will see them leaving in droves, and it is not like most gasterbaiters or migrants like their host country.
Most probably want to go to the UK, France or Germany.

So fucking what? Russia does its own color revolutions with less fancy names all the time, if they can play this game, why not us.
>chummy with Lithuanians
Since over half a millenium lol.

>Rants about Russia having no soft power.
> Goes on about Muh Russian Color revolutions...

>Orthodox
Since when are you such a holier than thou guy? Who even cares? The "orthodox areas" are generally less religious than Poland

Because it is part of national identity, unlike papism and the various other breakaway heresies like protestantism.

(which is also less religious than it was in the 90's, nevermind 17th century) to begin with, so literally who cares, besides eurocrats insist we tolerate far worse stuff, nevermind that sometimes you're sounding as if you are regurgitating the religious angle of local Russian propaganda straight from 17th century, as if everyone cared about the same stuff and as much now.

>Doesn't know my country's history or the important part orthodoxy played in preserving our national identity, and how it did the same for many other orthodox countries under occupation.
>Rees about Russian propaganda.

Who made you the emperor of Europe? Why would we want random places we have little to no history or connection with? Where Poland,where Macedonia?

Lessee now, most of the Balkan stuff I listed was either ours for centuries or is occupied by our enemies, or both.
So yeah, you can have it.

Can you at least make your accusations, bullshit and offers consistent with each other? One moment you accuse Poland of trying to landgrab neighbors and oppress them for their orthodoxy or whatever, and few sentences later, you accuse it of... supporting nationalist independence movements in these same lands!

Ukraine is basically a hodge-podge of parts of former poliglot empires(Zhoposhpolita, Russia, Austria-Hungary even the Ottomans) it has a huge amount of minorities and lots of areas that have long, deep history as being part of something else long before the invented state of Ukraine was ever dreamt up after WWI.
What they are doing is an attempt to wipe out the history of other ethnic groups, and a major driving force behind this is the various banderista neonazi groups.
They are basically as legitimate an ethnos and country as Macedonia or Romania, which is to say not at all.

As to the Baltics, well they were parts of Russia for hundreds of years, and the local populations were taken over by the likes of the Livonian order ond partially germanized before that.

So, yeah, TL;DR Russians have deep roots in the area and you demanding they are recent migrants is a bad joke.

Come on, we can't be doing both.

>Whines about muh sphere of influence.

Also, those Polish bastards, supporting independence movements, how dare they, why won't they think of the suffering of poor eastern empires, don't they know how hard is it to run an empire even without nationalist independence movements...

>Then whines about muh freedom fighters.

You certainly are trying to have it both ways, bronekokoshka.

And once again you perceive my attempt at trying to have a reasonable conversation as me giving in.


You have also flip-flopped from muh Poland and its interests to muh freedom fighters and color revolutions.


Now back to your little spat with the Russians and geopolitics-mode marduk, well, frankly I see it as a guy in a Trabant or on a bicycle deciding to play chicken with a dump truck.

 

[mrttao]

All the disgusting advocacy for genocide as the "nicest" way to mop up after wars of conquest and arguing the moral rectitude of it are ignoring the simple and obvious fact that wars of conquest are themselves blatantly immoral. The simplest, best and most moral position is "Don't go and murder your neighbours because you want their shit."

1. Cultural assimilation is not genocide. Genocide is genocide.
And you are in favor of methods that lead to actual real genocide.

2. You are making a strawman. Look at the actual argument:

Every country should do that to their enemies.

...

I am not saying Putin is a good person.
He is a slimy FSB shit deepstate mafioso who overthrew Russia's attempt at democracy to install himself as a petty Tyrant. One who happily collaborated with Russian Oligarchs to rape Russia... why, sounds a lot like what the American Oligarchs do to america.

Please quote where I said that declaring war on your neighbor to take their shit is a good thing?
Please quote where I said putin is a good guy?

I didn't. I said putin is an evil slimey piece of shit...
It just so happened that on this one particular issue, the treatment of a conquered enemy, putin chose the method that is best.

I don't believe he chose that method out of moral reasons.
but because in addition to being the most moral, that method is also the most economically sound. I believe Putin chose it for the economic reasons.

===

Also @mrttao you're either forgetting or ignoring the simple golden rule of morality, your "study of history" has clearly not paid enough attention to the vile and horrendous things that have been done in the name of "the greater good" and you're a failed person.

Big talk from a failed person hypocrite who is advocating for methods that are proven to cause actual real genocide.

 

[Agent23]

 

[Megadeath]

1. Cultural assimilation is not genocide. Genocide is genocide.
And you are in favor of methods that lead to actual real genocide.

Explain, please, how "Don't launch wars of conquest." leads to genocide?

2. You are making a strawman. Look at the actual argument:

Please quote where I said that declaring war on your neighbor to take their shit is a good thing?
Please quote where I said putin is a good guy?

"Every country should do that to their enemies."

Big talk from a failed person hypocrite who is advocating for methods that are proven to cause actual real genocide.

Again, I look forward to how not launching wars of conquest causes genocide. I'm quite prepared to cite as counter evidence the countless times countries didn't try to conquer others where, somehow miraculously that not-invading didn't lead to genocide.

 

[Marduk]

America was absolutely right to americanize the indians.
They were vicious murderous barbarians and needed to be brought the light of culture and civilization. And they were.
Even if the indians were not barbarians, it would still be the correct path that any nation which wants to survive should take with its conquered enemies.

It is a shame we turned into a bunch of cucks who don't do that anymore.

Cultural assimilation is not "genocide".
Because you are not killing people, you are assimilating them to remove the hostile culture.
The culture is gone, but not the people.

If USA was not full of cucks then we would have Americanized Iran and Iraq the same way the Indians were.
Instead, the stupid approach used resulted in ISIS.

Calling me a russian shill is frankly retarded.
While I respect the Russians for not being cucks.
I would rather we did this to them. I don't want russia to russify us.
Not that there is any risk of them ever doing so.
while they have the will to Russify us, they are a paper tiger who is on the cusp of total collapse.

Forced cultural assimilation is called winning.
Something you cuckservatives cannot comprehend.

Answer the question.

I'd like to note that when Indians were being americanized, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide didn't exist yet, not sure if even any people who wrote it were alive yet. It's against our legal tradition to punish anyone for breaking laws retroactively, so, whatever.
Meanwhile i'm pretty sure Russia itself has signed this convention and didn't even bother officially withdrawing.

List of parties to the Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mrttao]

Explain, please, how "Don't launch wars of conquest." leads to genocide?

facepalm. You are failing so hard at reading comprehension right now.

You made multiple arguments if you happened to forget.
Don't even have the war in the first place is one such argument, which I pointed out is a strawman.

You took me saying that "this is the historically proven least bad way to treat a conquered populace" and twisted it into "mrttao is advocating that you go to war to steal resources from your neighbors"

In addition to that strawman argument, you are also making other arguments. Some of which implied. (because you refuse to specify exactly how to treat conquered people. as you fear being accused of being evil too. so you only attack without offering alternatives)

You are positing that culturally assimilating the conquered populace after the war is "genocide" and evil.
Rather than historically proven least bad way to treat a conquered populace.

What leads to genocide is how you want to handle conquered people. (which, your refusal to elaborate on makes me have to deduce based on your other statements)

"don't have wars in the first place" is not actually a way to handle conquered people. Making it a stupid non argument.

"Every country should do that to their enemies."

facepalm. more reading comprehension fail.

1. Putin choosing the best policy (out of greed) to handle conquered civilian populace does not make him a good guy.
Because there is far far more aspects to war than just this one singular policy choice.

2. "This is what every country should do to conquered enemy populace" != "you should go start wars with your friendly neighbor so you can steal their shit"

3. if they are your nice and friendly neighbor (whom you are not at war with), then they are not an enemy.

 

[mrttao]

I'd like to note that when Indians were being americanized, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide didn't exist yet, not sure if even any people who wrote it were alive yet. It's against our legal tradition to punish anyone for breaking laws retroactively, so, whatever.

Until this very moment, everyone was discussing morality. not law.
(as can be seen by all the people saying I am evil)

Regardless, american's really do not have a leg to stand on when complaining about this. Due to their own history of americanization.

But... I also disagree with the modern americucks who complain about it.
I think your ancestors were absolutely right to americanize the indians.

Meanwhile i'm pretty sure Russia itself has signed this convention and didn't even bother officially withdrawing.

Your source says it was signed by the USSR, a country that no longer exists.
Your source also explicitly marks said claim as dubious.
so... pretty clearly russia is not actually a signatory.

Also... from your own source

Early drafts also included acts of cultural destruction in the concept of genocide, but these were opposed by former colonial powers. Such acts, which Lemkin saw as part and parcel of the concept of genocide, have since often been discussed as cultural genocide (a term also not enshrined in international law).[11] In June, 2021, the International Criminal Court issued new guidelines for how cultural destruction, when occurring alongside other recognized acts of genocide, can potentially be corroborating evidence for the intent of the crime of genocide.[12]

Cultural destruction is explicitly not genocide.
It was only in 2021 (gee I wonder why) suddenly "clarified" that ... it is still explicitly not genocide. but could be "corroborating evidence" when done alongside actual genocide.

 

[Megadeath]

facepalm. You are failing so hard at reading comprehension right now.

You made multiple arguments if you happened to forget.
Don't even have the war in the first place is one such argument, which I pointed out is a strawman.

You took me saying that "this is the historically proven least bad way to treat a conquered populace" and twisted it into "mrttao is advocating that you go to war to steal resources from your neighbors"

In addition to that strawman argument, you are also making other arguments. Some of which implied.
You are positing that culturally assimilating the conquered populace after the war is "genocide" and evil.
Rather than historically proven least bad way to treat a conquered populace.

What leads to genocide is how you want to handle conquered people. (which, your refusal to elaborate on makes me have to deduce based on your other statements)

"don't have wars in the first place" is not actually a way to handle conquered people. Making it a stupid non argument.

facepalm. more reading comprehension fail.

1. Putin choosing the best policy (out of greed) to handle conquered civilian populace does not make him a good guy.
Because there is far far more aspects to war than just this one singular policy choice.

2. "This is what every country should do to conquered enemy populace" != "you should go start wars with your friendly neighbor so you can steal their shit"

3. if they are your nice and friendly neighbor, then they are not an enemy.

You have entirely, completely and utterly failed to understand. "Don't conquer other people." is ignoring the issue of how you handle conquered populace? Well yes, that is entirely the point.

Also, for someone who keeps harping on about strawman arguments, you're bringing up "I didn't say Puting was good!" an awful lot in response to nothing I actually said. It's also a nice bit of verbal jujitsu to twist from saying "This is what every country should do to their enemies." to claiming you said "This is what every country should do to conquered enemy populace." Those are not the same. The first in fact indicates that if you do consider another country an enemy, you should invade them so you can do it. Which is obviously repugnant. The latter just ignores the complete immorality of conquest to start with, so it's merely morally stunted.

And yes, I am refusing to engage with you on the "best" way to handle a conquered people. Because it's moot due to the inherent immorality, because you've already made clear that you have a strong emotional attachment to a stupid position and I don't want to beat my head against that brick wall, because I gather that you're taking as axiomatic a whole dump truck load of beliefs we'd strongly disagree on and also need to cover, and because you're stupid and morally bankrupt. It's clear what you think. It disgusts me. It springs from premise that themselves offend common decency. I hope my own opinion and feelings on the subject are clear to you too now. We're done, this isn't a debate.

 

[Marduk]

>Rants about migrants.
> Is gleeful that there are lots of economic migrants in his country on account of it being EU-integrated.
Which one, bronekokoshka?

Fuck your 13 year old level attempt to force me into a false binary of 2 extremes. Go learn to read and then read what i've written on the topic.

Yeah, maybe it is because of this thing called the EU, I am pretty sure that if things sour economically for you you will see them leaving in droves, and it is not like most gasterbaiters or migrants like their host country.
Most probably want to go to the UK, France or Germany.

That's between us and them, neither you nor Russia have any place in that discussion.

>Rants about Russia having no soft power.
> Goes on about Muh Russian Color revolutions...

Idunno, i think it would be unfitting to call whatever FSB, SVR and GRU are doing as particularly soft in nature.

Because it is part of national identity, unlike papism and the various other breakaway heresies like protestantism.

How about all the euroasianists, Russians and other keks fuck off and stop telling other people's what's supposed to be a part of their own nationality and what isn't?

>Doesn't know my country's history or the important part orthodoxy played in preserving our national identity, and how it did the same for many other orthodox countries under occupation.
>Rees about Russian propaganda.

We have exactly the same keks around here, except with the Catholic Church. You wouldn't like them, but you would deserve each other.

Lessee now, most of the Balkan stuff I listed was either ours for centuries or is occupied by our enemies, or both.
So yeah, you can have it.

Welp, you can't exactly give what you don't have anyway.

Ukraine is basically a hodge-podge of parts of former poliglot empires(Zhoposhpolita, Russia, Austria-Hungary even the Ottomans) it has a huge amount of minorities and lots of areas that have long, deep history as being part of something else long before the invented state of Ukraine was ever dreamt up after WWI.
What they are doing is an attempt to wipe out the history of other ethnic groups, and a major driving force behind this is the various banderista neonazi groups.
They are basically as legitimate an ethnos and country as Macedonia or Romania, which is to say not at all.

Again, no one cares what you think, antifa larper. If you can call random countries illegitimate because you don't like them, why can't we take a page from a certain US president and outlaw Russia forever?

As to the Baltics, well they were parts of Russia for hundreds of years, and the local populations were taken over by the likes of the Livonian order ond partially germanized before that.

So, yeah, TL;DR Russians have deep roots in the area and you demanding they are recent migrants is a bad joke.

Yes, hundreds of years, specifically 2 hundreds in case of Estonia, lol. What about the other 800 of the last millenium? Why are 200 years under Russia more important than the time under other countries or independence?

>Whines about muh sphere of influence.

>Then whines about muh freedom fighters.

You certainly are trying to have it both ways, bronekokoshka.

Stop confusing me with yourself, that's insulting to me.

And once again you perceive my attempt at trying to have a reasonable conversation as me giving in.


You have also flip-flopped from muh Poland and its interests to muh freedom fighters and color revolutions.

Why can't independence of certain countries east of Poland under muh freedom fighters be in the interest of Poland? Are you this dull or are you trying to catch me on silly rhetorical tricks?
Why the hell should we self-handicap ourselves with the limits of Russian leadership when we can pull off options they can't or are too RUSSIA STRONK to consider and make deals with muh freedom fighters?

Now back to your little spat with the Russians and geopolitics-mode marduk, well, frankly I see it as a guy in a Trabant or on a bicycle deciding to play chicken with a dump truck.

Oh fuck off drunken vatnik in a rusty lada.

Until this very moment, everyone was discussing morality. not law.
(as can be seen by all the people saying I am evil)

Sorry, but advocating breaking something called Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sure does make you sound evil.
Obviously it also wasn't against the prevailing morality in the 18th century.

Your source says it was signed by the USSR, a country that no longer exists.
Your source also explicitly marks said claim as dubious.
so... pretty clearly russia is not actually a signatory.

Also... from your own source

Cultural destruction is explicitly not genocide.
It was only in 2021 (gee I wonder why) suddenly "clarified" that ... it is still explicitly not genocide. but could be "corroborating evidence" when done alongside actual genocide.

Are you stupid or malicious?

Russia

Article 357 of the Federal Criminal Code.[4]

List of parties to the Genocide Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spot Russia...

Also nice goalpost shift with cultural destruction. Forgot that your original comment was about the matter of transferring children?

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

 

[Agent23]

Fuck your 13 year old level attempt to force me into a false binary of 2 extremes.

>Muh binary options.
You mean like the same binary options you have been pushing?
Go look yourself in the mirror.

Go learn to read and then read what i've written on the topic.

>Reee...

That's between us and them, neither you nor Russia have any place in that discussion.

>More empty ree.

Idunno, i think it would be unfitting to call whatever FSB, SVR and GRU are doing as particularly soft in nature.

How about all the euroasianists, Russians and other keks fuck off and stop telling other people's what's supposed to be a part of their own nationality and what isn't?

>REEEE!

We have exactly the same keks around here, except with the Catholic Church. You wouldn't like them, but you would deserve each other.

You have a weird obsession with Turkish pastries!

Again, no one cares what you think, antifa larper.

Yup, here we have the good old marduk false dichotomy of everyone I disagree with is a commie/Putin shill/antifa...

If you can call random countries illegitimate because you don't like them, why can't we take a page from a certain US president and outlaw Russia forever?

let us see, objective reality and history.

Yes, hundreds of years, specifically 2 hundreds in case of Estonia, lol. What about the other 800 of the last millenium? Why are 200 years under Russia more important than the time under other countries or independence?

About as long as the USA has been around, that is 6-7 generations, and it is not like the current borders are the same as the old borders.

Stop confusing me with yourself, that's insulting to me.

>Reee!

Why can't independence of certain countries east of Poland under muh freedom fighters be in the interest of Poland? Are you this dull or are you trying to catch me on silly rhetorical tricks?

Why the hell should we self-handicap ourselves with the limits of Russian leadership when we can pull off options they can't or are too RUSSIA STRONK to consider and make deals with muh freedom fighters?

You are backing absolute nazi shits and oligarchs who want in on the EU and US institutional money, then you try to whitewash their corruption and atrocities while pretending to be doing it for muh freedom and muh ideals.
Again, you are flipflopping between muh interests and muh ideological gibberish about freedom you spew to try and drag the western public in on your side.

Also, since you are so eager to support them, why not go and support them directly, you have had over an year to do so.

Then again, you and the other chickenhawks are all cowards and hypocrites.

Other than reeing on the interwebz you will never, ever do anything.

Oh fuck off drunken vatnik in a rusty lada.

Sorry, but advocating breaking something called Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sure does make you sound evil.

REE MORE!

Obviously it also wasn't against the prevailing morality in the 18th century.

Are you stupid or malicious?

REE MORE!
REE HARDER!

Also nice goalpost shift with cultural destruction. Forgot that your original comment was about the matter of transferring children?

Yup, because Mamluks and Janissaries weren't a thing and the Arabs/Muslims did not culturally assimilate the Levant and the Maghreb.

They could have easily taken the Balkans in this way as well, but the reason they did not was because they needed the Jizya to be paid and because they needed the productivity of all those conquered Christians.

 

[mrttao]

Sorry, but advocating breaking something called Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sure does make you sound evil.

Actually, I was advocating that it is not genocide.

Are you stupid or malicious?

Spot Russia...

Are you?

You are pointing at a picture, made based on a chart, and arguing the picture trumps the chart it is based on.
Try actually reading the actual chart in the same page you linked.

The chart says "Russia" ratified it in 3 May 1954.
Explicitly notes it was actually the USSR that did so. Not modern russia which is a different country altogether.

And the citation it gives is explicitly marked as "dubious"

Also nice goalpost shift with cultural destruction. Forgot that your original comment was about the matter of transferring children?

Not a goalpost shift.
I was discussing cultural destruction in every single post on the subject.
Child brainwashing is how you destroy a culture.

That being said. I read back and indeed the original post I was replying to said children being kidnapped. And the genocide convention does specify that as a form of genocide, which I had not noticed before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, we are back then to discussing law vs morality. The law says this is genocide, I disagree.

Obviously it also wasn't against the prevailing morality in the 18th century.

because in the 18th century USA was not full of demoralized cuckolds out of touch with reality.

 

[Marduk]

Actually, I was advocating that it is not genocide.

So what's up with the sidetrack to the "cultural destruction" thing that wasn't in the original convention from the original comment about child transfer that always was in the convention?

You are pointing at a picture, made based on a chart, and arguing the picture trumps the chart it is based on.
Try actually reading the actual chart in the same page you linked.

What does the chart say? Why are you going to such lengths that despite Russia originally ratifying it as Soviet Union, it also added it to post-Soviet legal code, which is why there are two entries, and nothing has to trump anything because both the chart and the picture are in agreement, it's just you being in denial?

The chart says "Russia" ratified it in 3 May 1954.
Explicitly notes it was actually the USSR that did so. Not modern russia which is a different country altogether.

Oh for fuck's sake...

Russia

Article 357 of the Federal Criminal Code.[4]

And the citation it gives is explicitly marked as "dubious"

Not a goalpost shift.
I was discussing cultural destruction in every single post on the subject.
Child brainwashing is how you destroy a culture.

It's one way to do it. So is killing everyone in it. But that and child transfers are specifically forbidden ways, even if there is controversy about "cultural destruction" in general.

That being said. I read back and indeed the original post I was replying to said children being kidnapped. And the genocide convention does specify that as a form of genocide, which I had not noticed before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well, we are back then to discussing law vs morality. The law says this is genocide, I disagree.

because in the 18th century USA was not full of demoralized cuckolds out of touch with reality.

Look at the list of countries that have signed the "demoralized cuck convention". Yeah...

 

[Marduk]

>Muh binary options.
You mean like the same binary options you have been pushing?
Go look yourself in the mirror.

When i've been pushing that?

You have a weird obsession with Turkish pastries!

Yup, here we have the good old marduk false dichotomy of everyone I disagree with is a commie/Putin shill/antifa...

Ok euroasianist.

Russia(gate/bot) - Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

And you are an utterly reprehensible piece of shit and a disgrace. No, you are. Morality is determined by the well documented and known results of your choices. (consequentialism) You are the one who is in favor of chanting "this is not my fault. I am still a good person" while you condemn...

www.the-sietch.com

Do you have a quota for reposting "mr child sex offender on Putin's dime" or are you just too lazy to shill Putin yourself?

let us see, objective reality and history.

About as long as the USA has been around, that is 6-7 generations, and it is not like the current borders are the same as the old borders.

>Reee!

But unlike with USA, other, internationally recognized countries still existing in region held Baltics for longer.

You are backing absolute nazi shits and oligarchs who want in on the EU and US institutional money, then you try to whitewash their corruption and atrocities while pretending to be doing it for muh freedom and muh ideals.
Again, you are flipflopping between muh interests and muh ideological gibberish about freedom you spew to try and drag the western public in on your side.

Fuck off to antifa if that's all you can talk about.
Flipflopping? Dude, i'm just simply beginning to realize that for all your pretending you just lack the IQ points to politics, you can just shitpost and provoke while pretending to be the smartass you aren't.
I'll ask for the last time - who said that rise of nationalist independence movements in a neighboring country cannot possibly be in a country's interest?
If your understanding of national interests ends at 18th century great powers and modern wannabes of that, i'm just feeling sorry for your lack of intelligence.

Also, since you are so eager to support them, why not go and support them directly, you have had over an year to do so.

As i said before, after you, Wagner welcomes.

Then again, you and the other chickenhawks are all cowards and hypocrites.


Other than reeing on the interwebz you will never, ever do anything.

What do you ever do other than literally reeing on the internet while being a coward and hypocrite? Projection much?

>Reee...

>More empty ree.

>REEEE!

Your lack of counterarguments has been acknowledged.

 

[King Arts]

Congrats, you created generations of ethnic violence. countless dead people. and probably an actual real genocide (killing instead of cultural assimilation) in your zeal to uphold stupid emotional ideals that were proven to never ever work.

It is people sharing your ideals that are responsible for ISIS.
"It was not my fault"... "couldn't be helped"... "nobody could have prevented it".

Mr tao can I ask what your religion is?

 

[Agent23]

When i've been pushing that?


Ok euroasianist.

Russia(gate/bot) - Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

And you are an utterly reprehensible piece of shit and a disgrace. No, you are. Morality is determined by the well documented and known results of your choices. (consequentialism) You are the one who is in favor of chanting "this is not my fault. I am still a good person" while you condemn...

www.the-sietch.com

Do you have a quota for reposting "mr child sex offender on Putin's dime" or are you just too lazy to shill Putin yourself?

>Ree!

But unlike with USA, other, internationally recognized countries still existing in region held Baltics for longer.

As I told you, I don't like them, I have no dog in their little pissing match with the Russians, I dislike their treatment of their Russian minorities and aggressive attempts to drag everyone into their little pissing contest with Russia,like when they used lies and fake news to get Sebastian Kurtz out because they disliked his opinions on Russia.

They can go fuck themselves.

Fuck off to antifa if that's all you can talk about.

>Ree, anyone who disagrees with me is a communist.Other opinions are verboten!

Flipflopping? Dude, i'm just simply beginning to realize that for all your pretending you just lack the IQ points to politics, you can just shitpost and provoke while pretending to be the smartass you aren't.
I'll ask for the last time - who said that rise of nationalist independence movements in a neighboring country cannot possibly be in a country's interest?
If your understanding of national interests ends at 18th century great powers and modern wannabes of that, i'm just feeling sorry for your lack of intelligence.

You are the one that always changes the subject and starts calling me a commie/antifa/whatever, you neurotic crybaby.
You have jack shit.
Enjoy charging a dump truck on your bicycle.

As i said before, after you, Wagner welcomes.

Translation, you are a coward and a hypocrite that will never step up and fight actively in the clusterfuck you advocate for.
Thank you for admitting to that, again.

What do you ever do other than literally reeing on the internet while being a coward and hypocrite? Projection much?

Your lack of counterarguments has been acknowledged.

Unlike you, I see no reason why I should repeat myself.


Anyway, since the Bronekokoshka won't stop sperging out here is something on topic:

 

[King Arts]

war is hell.


And as much as I hate to say it, the history of the world is not a nice one.

cultural assimilation is actually when you look at history one of the nicer outcomes for conquered peoples.

Genocides, Mass slavery and other outcomes have been pretty common. Personally I would prefer to have a system where local peoples have some kind of autonomy under an overarching structure like the holy roman empire but you really cant do something like that in a modern period where the state is so massive and intrusive in peoples lives.

What happened to the native american's wasn't nice, but looking at the long range of history tribal warfare is fucking brutal as hell with casulity rates of more then 20% being not uncommon. America's conquest of the america's while brutal did create lasting peace much like china's conquest of itself, and russia's expansion.

But the fact is.

Russia's played out.

They spent generations either in bloodsoaked conflict or commiting national and cultural sucide, they simply do not have what it takes to be a good hedgemon maybe if they had avoided communism maybe this maybe that but demographically their fucked, their industry is pretty much increasingly obsolute, their leadership cadre is aging into death and their fundamentals are horrible.

Even in the case they win big all of their internal issues means they just end up collapsing anyways and creating an even bigger mess in its wake. If they lose and lose big in Ukraine then that limits the damage they do as they collapse.

The problem with your suggestion of how the Ancient Persians handled conquered peoples by letting them keep their culture as long as they obey the law and pay taxes is that back then common people did not care about who the ruler was exactly as long as they weren’t being fucked with. Now people want democracy and a say in government so you’d have to at least culturally genocide nations that are based on freedom who won’t just roll over for the new boss.

All the disgusting advocacy for genocide as the "nicest" way to mop up after wars of conquest and arguing the moral rectitude of it are ignoring the simple and obvious fact that wars of conquest are themselves blatantly immoral. The simplest, best and most moral position is "Don't go and murder your neighbours because you want their shit."

If the only way to get more people to follow your beliefs/ideology/politics/cult leader etc. is to murder anyone who'd fight you over it, and then rape the remainder, tear apart their families and force them into subjugation, maybe it's not an idea worth following in the first place.

Hopefully obviously, that doesn’t conclude that all war is inherently immoral. Though it's never a good thing, sometimes the use of force can be morally justified. War as a form of intervention, for the sake of liberation, and even as a proactive defence can be morally justified.

Also @mrttao you're either forgetting or ignoring the simple golden rule of morality, your "study of history" has clearly not paid enough attention to the vile and horrendous things that have been done in the name of "the greater good" and you're a failed person. Whether by learning the wrong lessons or some natural disease of the mind, you are missing something vital that makes a decent person. I'd pity you, if I could only look past how much you disgust me.

Question how do you define cultural destruction? Do you condemn Americas actions in Japan after world war 2? Specifically imposing democracy and the humanity declaration.

>Rants about migrants.
> Is gleeful that there are lots of economic migrants in his country on account of it being EU-integrated.
Which one, bronekokoshka?
Yeah, maybe it is because of this thing called the EU, I am pretty sure that if things sour economically for you you will see them leaving in droves, and it is not like most gasterbaiters or migrants like their host country.
Most probably want to go to the UK, France or Germany.


>Rants about Russia having no soft power.
> Goes on about Muh Russian Color revolutions...

Because it is part of national identity, unlike papism and the various other breakaway heresies like protestantism.

>Doesn't know my country's history or the important part orthodoxy played in preserving our national identity, and how it did the same for many other orthodox countries under occupation.
>Rees about Russian propaganda.


Lessee now, most of the Balkan stuff I listed was either ours for centuries or is occupied by our enemies, or both.
So yeah, you can have it.

Ukraine is basically a hodge-podge of parts of former poliglot empires(Zhoposhpolita, Russia, Austria-Hungary even the Ottomans) it has a huge amount of minorities and lots of areas that have long, deep history as being part of something else long before the invented state of Ukraine was ever dreamt up after WWI.
What they are doing is an attempt to wipe out the history of other ethnic groups, and a major driving force behind this is the various banderista neonazi groups.
They are basically as legitimate an ethnos and country as Macedonia or Romania, which is to say not at all.

As to the Baltics, well they were parts of Russia for hundreds of years, and the local populations were taken over by the likes of the Livonian order ond partially germanized before that.

So, yeah, TL;DR Russians have deep roots in the area and you demanding they are recent migrants is a bad joke.

>Whines about muh sphere of influence.

>Then whines about muh freedom fighters.

You certainly are trying to have it both ways, bronekokoshka.

And once again you perceive my attempt at trying to have a reasonable conversation as me giving in.


You have also flip-flopped from muh Poland and its interests to muh freedom fighters and color revolutions.


Now back to your little spat with the Russians and geopolitics-mode marduk, well, frankly I see it as a guy in a Trabant or on a bicycle deciding to play chicken with a dump truck.

Saying other orthodox nations like Romania aren’t real(then what are the people there if not Romanian you think they are Russians in denial?) is a good way to get everyone to hate you.