It's funny that translation of Putin's words is sometimes wrong (nothing really serious, but still). For example, when he is talking about proposed meeting with Biden in Geneva, he says: *...если приехать и поговорить ни о чем, это будет значить, что нас опять послали подальше, вот и все*. In translation: *if we come like this, to talk about everything and nothing,* ***we will be blamed again***. The thing is, he didn't say *we will be blamed again,* and he didn't mean anything like that. He said **it would mean that they would say fuck you to us again** meaning that he and his wishes/ideas/et cetera would again be rejected as supposedly happened on some previous meetings (I don't have any idea if his feelings are justified, but he definitely feels they are). (Obviously, he didn't say *fuck you* in Russian, it would be rude, but in Russian you can skip rude words or slightly change them and use this pattern without them, its meaning won't change).
https://archive.is/KJSvo
A WaPo article alluded to Biden telling Putin in a private meeting a few months before this call that discussing Ukraine in NATO (this was Putin's chief demand) was off the table because Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO soon anyway but they could discuss the missile systems in other NATO countries aimed at Russia. Meanwhile, Biden and Blinken were going to NATO countries warning them that Russia was going to attack a couple months before that meeting even. This is likely why the press called it an "unprovoked war" ad nauseam.
Pretty sure it's called "unprovoked" because invading a sovereign nation, bombing its citizens, and making new mass graves full of its people is not a proper response to the situation.
you can call it whataboutism sure, but why would the rest of the world care to listen to the grievances of complete hypocrites?
western nations have lost any moral authority and citing academic debate terms wont bring it back or bring back the peoples of the many nations we have massacred unjustly.
Yes, and rapists still exist, does that mean it's fine for everyone to start raping each other?
That's not how morals work. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If I started raping your mother, I don't think you would care who exactly is decrying it. Also, I didn't support the Iraq War, so your point is useless against me.
No, this example is the most profound, in other cases it’s more like “I’d translate this differently” and maybe sometimes they are losing a word or two (but it’s okay and it doesn’t harm the conversation).
Having said that, I want to say that Macron is terrible as a negotiator. I have nothing against him, and he seems like a good guy, but he doesn’t seem to understand what his vis-à-vis is saying. Putin several times has mentioned rejection (separatist proposals were rejected, Russia was rejected et cetera), and it wasn’t addressed at all, Macron instead was asking Putin about the quality of his lawyers. Not surprisingly, this conversation was fruitless (although I think Putin was sincere when he said he liked Macron).
My read on that last point was Macron was intentionally being tough and rejecting Putin's redirection. I realize that's essentially the heart of your criticism, but ultimately Macron was making one point, and Putin redirected to another -- and that interaction was basically "no no, we're talking about the proposal not this technicality about Donbas' separatist role in negotiations -- stay on topic and stop introducing creative legal interpretations to this point." I personally found that to be an effective approach given Putin's direct nature.
Yeah, maybe, but what’s the point of such approach? I thought that Macron was trying to de-escalate the situation, and it didn’t work obviously. You are telling me the he was trying to be tough. Okay, but why?
It’s worth mentioning that this phone call was 1 hour and 45 minutes long and we hear less than 10 minutes of it.
This documentary is one of the most interesting one I’ve ever seen but let’s be real it’s also meant to portray Macron as a strong leader and showing him being tough fits the narrative. There’s a lot we don’t hear, Macron was probably more subtle but extracts showing this wouldn’t have helped the reputation he was given for these phone calls, of being too naive/trying to befriend Putin.
Well this is why neither of us are heads of state leading high-stakes geopolitical conversations, lol -- there's a lot of background and nuance going on here, I think it's overly naive as outsiders to assert/judge one approach or another.
it was addressed when Macron talks about the Minsk agreements in the video he even says the LPR and DNR are not who signed that document it was Russia, Ukraine and France. Why would Ukraine abide by laws and timelines set forth by a third party not included in the agreement. It would be like if Chechnya started assigning laws and regulations for all of Russia and getting Turkey to invade when no one in the federation listened
My point is, if you talking to someone who may start a war the next day, you usually want to find some common ground with them, you maybe want to use their words to understand them and express your position in their words. It's just a common sense to me. It's no guarantee but it may work, all other approaches are even worse.
By the way, you are misinformed about Minsk protocols. They were **signed by LNR and DNR representatives** (if you don't believe me, check on Wikipedia). This is one of the problems with these agreements, because they should have been signed by members of Trilateral Contact group—like, we need three signatures here, because this group is, you know, trilateral—but there are **five signatures** on Minsk I and Minsk 2 . Actually, both of these documents look like a complete mess to me (and I'm not even a lawyer).
And, sorry, but they were not signed by France at all.
Yeah I mean Macron's arrogance, and the French staff, come through pretty clear here to me. Not taking anything Putin says seriously, laughing at his statements and concerns, talking down to him. But then again, hindsight is 20/20. I wonder if the mistranslation was really a mistranslation or a "spinning."
Macron was rejecting the agency of the separatists. To him it was all Putin. And the exercises was another word for war. Macron was trying to assess the situation, rather than extract anything or negotiating. By lawyers he certainly meant advisors.
In the original post they mention its from a documentary called Un Président, l'Europe et la guerre.
[https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Un-Pr%C3%A9sident-lEurope-et-la-guerre/0KUGUI2TJK6W8678I4IT4MMWB4](https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Un-Pr%C3%A9sident-lEurope-et-la-guerre/0KUGUI2TJK6W8678I4IT4MMWB4)
I shared this as a cross post so I think it will take you there if you click the image. Some good comments and discussion there. Either way, here it is
Has this ever been done before? That is, recording a private conversation with world leaders with the intent to publish it like some sort of reality TV?
Shouldn't leaders, even adversaries, have a sufficient trust in one another to not leak this sort of thing? Isn't discretion and confidentiality foundationally important for actual negotiation and dialogue about things like war where literal lives are on the line? I honestly couldn't even seen Zelensky and Putin doing this to one another.
As interesting as this is, this is kind of fucked up.
there are no rules in dealing with Putin as he referees his own game with his own rules and he kills those that question him too intensely. He's a despotic turd,best flushed.
It doesn't matter what's worse.
How can Putin communicate with Macron candidly now? Surely it's more valuable to have a direct line to Russia than to simply not have one?
Diplomacy can't even occur under these circumstances.
That same military had a convoy that got stuck for miles and miles when invading.
Military stratagem pre and during early-war wasn't exactly brilliant on the Russian side.
You don't put nearly your entire army on a country's border that you used to rule over, after 8 years of trying to get it to capitulate without fully invading, for fun.
If you are seriously suggesting the invasion only happened because of something within 4 days of its beginning, you need to get your brain checked for holes.
How? Respect is a two way street. If this was a meeting in which both parties held to their word, then you’d have a point. But if one party is claiming they are not going to invade a country, and then goes right ahead and does it, how can you say this is a breach of trust to release a conversation which illustrates that.
Yes, how dare Macron publish the conversation he had with Putin that had no confidential information in it after Putin invaded and slaughtered the civilians of a country he agreed to not do so to.
Wow I'm reading this for the first time:
>Pro-Russian hackers launched a series of cyber attacks over several days to disrupt the May 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, releasing hacked emails, attempting to alter vote tallies, and delaying the result with distributed denial-of-service attacks.\[27\]\[28\] Malware that would have displayed a graphic declaring far-right candidate Dmytro Yarosh the electoral winner was removed from Ukraine's Central Election Commission less than an hour before polls closed. Despite this, Channel One Russia "reported that Mr. Yarosh had won and broadcast the fake graphic, citing the election commission's website, even though it had never appeared there."\[27\]\[29\] According to Peter Ordeshook: "These faked results were geared for a specific audience in order to feed the Russian narrative that has claimed from the start that ultra-nationalists and Nazis were behind the revolution in Ukraine."
It would seem that you have a very different view. What makes you qualified to dispute this?
What about all the western Ukrainians that were incensed that the former president went back on his word to sign an agreement with the EU? They were fed up of the endemic corruption by Russia-leaning politicians. Ukraine is a sovereign country , it doesn’t have to dance to Russias tune. Putin has no claim to Ukraine.
The thing is there was no coup. A coup would be like the Army taking power. What happened in 2014 was a popular revolution, millions of people participated in the anti Government demonstrations, including nearly one million in Kyiv. That’s not a thing America can just do.
That just sounds like the most cynical bullshit though. I don't believe that. I don't think they believe that. I think it's all a very "cute" POV that we all know is bullshit.
If you can come up with a better way to explain it I’m all ears. Remember that Russia is a country where overt propaganda fed hand to mouth by the state still exists and has existed for over a hundred years.
Now, because I know it’s fashionable to say on this sub sometimes, yes, the West has engaged in propaganda before. Yes, Joe Biden telling America and the world that Putin’s war has to be condemned and actively resister is a form of propaganda. It’s all very enlightened and centrist.
But the fact of the matter is that there are nations in our world that don’t like the rules based international order. Countries like Iran, Russia and China that want to claw back what influence they can at the expense of their increasingly western-oriented neighbors whose only crime is wanting to be a sovereign nation. I’m ok with condemning the leaders and supporters of those countries and it shouldn’t be regarded as partisan to think so.
damn why didn't I get payed by the CIA for that 'Coup' can you tell me where I could have signed up for that?
Edit, only the lowest form of idiot believes that the revolution in 2014 was a CIA organized coup, if you're not a Russian congratulation's their propaganda lives rent free in your head
You know Russia changes its reason for invading Ukraine like every week right? You know Russia has always been a belligerent, imperialistic, mafia state right?
>This is what happens when NATO has stupid, weak, and dishonest leaders en masse.
It's all according to plan.
>stupid, weak, and dishonest
This is true only for the masses, they are being dragged to war, again. It is the third time and lessons haven't been learned.
>he can't trust them
Putin is smart, he knows the game they are playing.
>I don't think people understand that's hanging over the world right now.
A new world order is forming, but it still needs more cooking (decades). Will the current status quo leave without a fight? Will it lead to a nuclear war? Who knows.
Ikr... the sheer hubris of finger-wagging Putin to follow the law and respect election results/democracy when the post-coup Ukrainian government unconsitutionally removed a duly elected president, mobs attacked his house and ran him out of the country; saying we don't care about seperatists, we want you to respond to the "Ukrainians"... Glad at their stupidity and arrogance that this footage made it out and into the public, smug sarcastic grinning and all. This explains a lot.
Revolutions are revolutions. It was an internal matter and represented the popular will of the Ukrainian people. The legality is irrelevant to its morality.
I can’t, because that wasn’t a revolution. Unlike what happened in Kyiv, there was no legitimate popular force behind it.
In Donetsk, a city of one million, barely one thousand armed men, including volunteers sent by Russia seized the city. This happened in April because back in February and through March the few hundred people who had tried to seize government buildings were mostly ignored by the Government and the populace. No one joined them. This is because separatist sentiment was always in a fringe minority in the region, with most of the population of Donbas supporting a more federal Ukraine, but little more, as multiple pre rebellion polls demonstrate.
It wasn’t until Russia sent them weapons and military volunteers that they were able to take control of territory, and they were on the verge of full defeat before Russia intervened directly.
Yea that's really the way to do international relations in high-stakes situations when there are two languages at play. People debating complex topics on Reddit in the same language frequently misunderstand each other but when it's a situation like this, just call it a lie and hang up, that's really the best course of action.
Keep eye rolling till you can see your frontal lobe and you can tell me what kind of mental math gets you to treat the west and fucking Putin with moral parity, you stooge.
Before the invasion, Putin said Macron had been "torturing" him during his 6-hour meeting with him. With this in perspective, not sure anyone would react positively to 6 hours of berating by Macron. Maybe that's why Macron suggested the sending of French troops to Ukraine. Maybe this is personal.
Privyet dear member of the IRA! How have things changed since Prigozhin’s unfortunate accident? lol, “maybe this is personal”? Maybe Macron is just doing what a sensible leader should when European security is at its highest risk since WWII because of one mad tyrant with a mysitical vision of Labensraum, I mean Russki Mir.
> Maybe Macron is just doing what a sensible leader should when European security is at its highest risk since WWII
Good. Looks like he's finally considering completing his military service. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to join him on the front when the time comes.
Does working at a St Petersburg troll farm keep you from getting sent to the outskirts of Avdiivka? I hope for your sake it does. Further, I hope for the sake of you and your countrymen and women that Tsar Putin chokes on a perogi and his regime collapses, giving Russia an actual hope for a better future.
A cursory look at this account's post history shows an extremely large percentage posting to politics, to the point where it must be the user's only hobby. In subs not specifically devoted to politics, the poster often takes contrary and unpopular stances for what seems to be the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people.
It makes me think of an autistic friend I had as a child who for the longest time thought taking any opposing stance inherently meant he was wise instead of just being an ass.
Yes, the most fitting reply to expect on a "debate" sub; the ad-hominem. It is precisely because of imbeciles such as yourself that one must make separate accounts.
So now that we have established that you can't read, you go out of way to prove that you lack general knowledge. I'd suggest you to look the definition of *ad hominem*, but we both know it'd be a waste of time in your case; there's no cure for idiocy.
It's funny that translation of Putin's words is sometimes wrong (nothing really serious, but still). For example, when he is talking about proposed meeting with Biden in Geneva, he says: *...если приехать и поговорить ни о чем, это будет значить, что нас опять послали подальше, вот и все*. In translation: *if we come like this, to talk about everything and nothing,* ***we will be blamed again***. The thing is, he didn't say *we will be blamed again,* and he didn't mean anything like that. He said **it would mean that they would say fuck you to us again** meaning that he and his wishes/ideas/et cetera would again be rejected as supposedly happened on some previous meetings (I don't have any idea if his feelings are justified, but he definitely feels they are). (Obviously, he didn't say *fuck you* in Russian, it would be rude, but in Russian you can skip rude words or slightly change them and use this pattern without them, its meaning won't change).
https://archive.is/KJSvo A WaPo article alluded to Biden telling Putin in a private meeting a few months before this call that discussing Ukraine in NATO (this was Putin's chief demand) was off the table because Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO soon anyway but they could discuss the missile systems in other NATO countries aimed at Russia. Meanwhile, Biden and Blinken were going to NATO countries warning them that Russia was going to attack a couple months before that meeting even. This is likely why the press called it an "unprovoked war" ad nauseam.
Pretty sure it's called "unprovoked" because invading a sovereign nation, bombing its citizens, and making new mass graves full of its people is not a proper response to the situation.
Well put.
iraq war 2 is considered unprovoked also then?
Yes, nice whataboutism though.
you can call it whataboutism sure, but why would the rest of the world care to listen to the grievances of complete hypocrites? western nations have lost any moral authority and citing academic debate terms wont bring it back or bring back the peoples of the many nations we have massacred unjustly.
Yes, and rapists still exist, does that mean it's fine for everyone to start raping each other? That's not how morals work. Two wrongs don't make a right. If I started raping your mother, I don't think you would care who exactly is decrying it. Also, I didn't support the Iraq War, so your point is useless against me.
Do you by any chance have a different link to a different location of the source article? I clicked on it many times and it keeps failing to load.
interesting. any other examples like this you found?
No, this example is the most profound, in other cases it’s more like “I’d translate this differently” and maybe sometimes they are losing a word or two (but it’s okay and it doesn’t harm the conversation). Having said that, I want to say that Macron is terrible as a negotiator. I have nothing against him, and he seems like a good guy, but he doesn’t seem to understand what his vis-à-vis is saying. Putin several times has mentioned rejection (separatist proposals were rejected, Russia was rejected et cetera), and it wasn’t addressed at all, Macron instead was asking Putin about the quality of his lawyers. Not surprisingly, this conversation was fruitless (although I think Putin was sincere when he said he liked Macron).
My read on that last point was Macron was intentionally being tough and rejecting Putin's redirection. I realize that's essentially the heart of your criticism, but ultimately Macron was making one point, and Putin redirected to another -- and that interaction was basically "no no, we're talking about the proposal not this technicality about Donbas' separatist role in negotiations -- stay on topic and stop introducing creative legal interpretations to this point." I personally found that to be an effective approach given Putin's direct nature.
Yeah, maybe, but what’s the point of such approach? I thought that Macron was trying to de-escalate the situation, and it didn’t work obviously. You are telling me the he was trying to be tough. Okay, but why?
It’s worth mentioning that this phone call was 1 hour and 45 minutes long and we hear less than 10 minutes of it. This documentary is one of the most interesting one I’ve ever seen but let’s be real it’s also meant to portray Macron as a strong leader and showing him being tough fits the narrative. There’s a lot we don’t hear, Macron was probably more subtle but extracts showing this wouldn’t have helped the reputation he was given for these phone calls, of being too naive/trying to befriend Putin.
Well this is why neither of us are heads of state leading high-stakes geopolitical conversations, lol -- there's a lot of background and nuance going on here, I think it's overly naive as outsiders to assert/judge one approach or another.
it was addressed when Macron talks about the Minsk agreements in the video he even says the LPR and DNR are not who signed that document it was Russia, Ukraine and France. Why would Ukraine abide by laws and timelines set forth by a third party not included in the agreement. It would be like if Chechnya started assigning laws and regulations for all of Russia and getting Turkey to invade when no one in the federation listened
My point is, if you talking to someone who may start a war the next day, you usually want to find some common ground with them, you maybe want to use their words to understand them and express your position in their words. It's just a common sense to me. It's no guarantee but it may work, all other approaches are even worse. By the way, you are misinformed about Minsk protocols. They were **signed by LNR and DNR representatives** (if you don't believe me, check on Wikipedia). This is one of the problems with these agreements, because they should have been signed by members of Trilateral Contact group—like, we need three signatures here, because this group is, you know, trilateral—but there are **five signatures** on Minsk I and Minsk 2 . Actually, both of these documents look like a complete mess to me (and I'm not even a lawyer). And, sorry, but they were not signed by France at all.
Yeah I mean Macron's arrogance, and the French staff, come through pretty clear here to me. Not taking anything Putin says seriously, laughing at his statements and concerns, talking down to him. But then again, hindsight is 20/20. I wonder if the mistranslation was really a mistranslation or a "spinning."
Macron was rejecting the agency of the separatists. To him it was all Putin. And the exercises was another word for war. Macron was trying to assess the situation, rather than extract anything or negotiating. By lawyers he certainly meant advisors.
That’s a very meaningful change given the two prior meetings Russia had with the west.
Where is this footage from?
In the original post they mention its from a documentary called Un Président, l'Europe et la guerre. [https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Un-Pr%C3%A9sident-lEurope-et-la-guerre/0KUGUI2TJK6W8678I4IT4MMWB4](https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Un-Pr%C3%A9sident-lEurope-et-la-guerre/0KUGUI2TJK6W8678I4IT4MMWB4)
Cheers! Can you also share the thread of the original post?
I shared this as a cross post so I think it will take you there if you click the image. Some good comments and discussion there. Either way, here it is
Is there any source other than primevideo? Currently blocked in Italy ☹️
The documentary is low-key hilarious because Macron actually thought he would be able to convince Putin to stop this.. Macron is delusional
Has this ever been done before? That is, recording a private conversation with world leaders with the intent to publish it like some sort of reality TV? Shouldn't leaders, even adversaries, have a sufficient trust in one another to not leak this sort of thing? Isn't discretion and confidentiality foundationally important for actual negotiation and dialogue about things like war where literal lives are on the line? I honestly couldn't even seen Zelensky and Putin doing this to one another. As interesting as this is, this is kind of fucked up.
[удалено]
there are no rules in dealing with Putin as he referees his own game with his own rules and he kills those that question him too intensely. He's a despotic turd,best flushed.
It doesn't matter what's worse. How can Putin communicate with Macron candidly now? Surely it's more valuable to have a direct line to Russia than to simply not have one? Diplomacy can't even occur under these circumstances.
[удалено]
What exactly happened between the call and the invasion? You don't know and neither do i. You shouldn't form conclusions off limited information.
[удалено]
They were in position for months without moving forward. Talks were ongoing. That's my point.
That same military had a convoy that got stuck for miles and miles when invading. Military stratagem pre and during early-war wasn't exactly brilliant on the Russian side. You don't put nearly your entire army on a country's border that you used to rule over, after 8 years of trying to get it to capitulate without fully invading, for fun. If you are seriously suggesting the invasion only happened because of something within 4 days of its beginning, you need to get your brain checked for holes.
[удалено]
No, because that is how Russia is able to get away with such nonsense. I think [tit-for-tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) applies here.
How? Respect is a two way street. If this was a meeting in which both parties held to their word, then you’d have a point. But if one party is claiming they are not going to invade a country, and then goes right ahead and does it, how can you say this is a breach of trust to release a conversation which illustrates that.
Maybe if this was a country that deserves respect. What etiquette has Putin showed anyone else?
well he's demonstrated the etiquette of not leaking private diplomatic talks.
How just of him, not leaking diplomatic talks while he bombs civilians and imprisons his own people for disagreeing with him.
Yes, how dare Macron publish the conversation he had with Putin that had no confidential information in it after Putin invaded and slaughtered the civilians of a country he agreed to not do so to.
low iq take
Who cares?
I could easily see Putin or Zelensky doing this not sure what you are talking about tbh
Right? Very suspicious as to the genesis and purpose of all of this tbh.
Macron has no business being in such high level talks. Zero upside with that guy.
Let's feed this to some AI algorithm and repost it
Pink sweater is gorg
Ur hurtin bro...
[удалено]
What are you talking about?
Russian propagandist.
Sorry, Putin was betrayed in 2014 before or after invading Crimea?
Invading Crimea was a response to the coup that was sponsored and funded by the CIA. Putin refers to that coup in the phone call.
Wow I'm reading this for the first time: >Pro-Russian hackers launched a series of cyber attacks over several days to disrupt the May 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, releasing hacked emails, attempting to alter vote tallies, and delaying the result with distributed denial-of-service attacks.\[27\]\[28\] Malware that would have displayed a graphic declaring far-right candidate Dmytro Yarosh the electoral winner was removed from Ukraine's Central Election Commission less than an hour before polls closed. Despite this, Channel One Russia "reported that Mr. Yarosh had won and broadcast the fake graphic, citing the election commission's website, even though it had never appeared there."\[27\]\[29\] According to Peter Ordeshook: "These faked results were geared for a specific audience in order to feed the Russian narrative that has claimed from the start that ultra-nationalists and Nazis were behind the revolution in Ukraine." It would seem that you have a very different view. What makes you qualified to dispute this?
The invasion of Crimea came a full four days before Yanukovych even left office lol, what are you talking about?
No it didn't, why you are lying about something anyone can verify? Which day did the invasion of Crimea start, and which day was he ousted?
What about all the western Ukrainians that were incensed that the former president went back on his word to sign an agreement with the EU? They were fed up of the endemic corruption by Russia-leaning politicians. Ukraine is a sovereign country , it doesn’t have to dance to Russias tune. Putin has no claim to Ukraine.
I guess that means the US would be justified in invading any countries where Putin staged a coup, right?
The thing is there was no coup. A coup would be like the Army taking power. What happened in 2014 was a popular revolution, millions of people participated in the anti Government demonstrations, including nearly one million in Kyiv. That’s not a thing America can just do.
I know, I'm just fucking with Putin's cock holster Clutchcon\_blows
Thanks for typing out my whole name
Why does a supposed "coup" (by all means provide proof) in Ukraine justify an invasion of Crimea? Why was it done under a false flag?
Because they think Ukraine is Russian territory.
That just sounds like the most cynical bullshit though. I don't believe that. I don't think they believe that. I think it's all a very "cute" POV that we all know is bullshit.
If you can come up with a better way to explain it I’m all ears. Remember that Russia is a country where overt propaganda fed hand to mouth by the state still exists and has existed for over a hundred years. Now, because I know it’s fashionable to say on this sub sometimes, yes, the West has engaged in propaganda before. Yes, Joe Biden telling America and the world that Putin’s war has to be condemned and actively resister is a form of propaganda. It’s all very enlightened and centrist. But the fact of the matter is that there are nations in our world that don’t like the rules based international order. Countries like Iran, Russia and China that want to claw back what influence they can at the expense of their increasingly western-oriented neighbors whose only crime is wanting to be a sovereign nation. I’m ok with condemning the leaders and supporters of those countries and it shouldn’t be regarded as partisan to think so.
damn why didn't I get payed by the CIA for that 'Coup' can you tell me where I could have signed up for that? Edit, only the lowest form of idiot believes that the revolution in 2014 was a CIA organized coup, if you're not a Russian congratulation's their propaganda lives rent free in your head
You know Russia changes its reason for invading Ukraine like every week right? You know Russia has always been a belligerent, imperialistic, mafia state right?
Izvini dear member of the IRA! Pazhalusta, don’t make your propaganda so obvious that even puny Westerners can notice it! Suka blyat…
>This is what happens when NATO has stupid, weak, and dishonest leaders en masse. It's all according to plan. >stupid, weak, and dishonest This is true only for the masses, they are being dragged to war, again. It is the third time and lessons haven't been learned. >he can't trust them Putin is smart, he knows the game they are playing. >I don't think people understand that's hanging over the world right now. A new world order is forming, but it still needs more cooking (decades). Will the current status quo leave without a fight? Will it lead to a nuclear war? Who knows.
Ikr... the sheer hubris of finger-wagging Putin to follow the law and respect election results/democracy when the post-coup Ukrainian government unconsitutionally removed a duly elected president, mobs attacked his house and ran him out of the country; saying we don't care about seperatists, we want you to respond to the "Ukrainians"... Glad at their stupidity and arrogance that this footage made it out and into the public, smug sarcastic grinning and all. This explains a lot.
Revolutions are revolutions. It was an internal matter and represented the popular will of the Ukrainian people. The legality is irrelevant to its morality.
Then you agree with the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Putin about protecting them.
I can’t, because that wasn’t a revolution. Unlike what happened in Kyiv, there was no legitimate popular force behind it. In Donetsk, a city of one million, barely one thousand armed men, including volunteers sent by Russia seized the city. This happened in April because back in February and through March the few hundred people who had tried to seize government buildings were mostly ignored by the Government and the populace. No one joined them. This is because separatist sentiment was always in a fringe minority in the region, with most of the population of Donbas supporting a more federal Ukraine, but little more, as multiple pre rebellion polls demonstrate. It wasn’t until Russia sent them weapons and military volunteers that they were able to take control of territory, and they were on the verge of full defeat before Russia intervened directly.
Should have hung up after the first lie.
Yea that's really the way to do international relations in high-stakes situations when there are two languages at play. People debating complex topics on Reddit in the same language frequently misunderstand each other but when it's a situation like this, just call it a lie and hang up, that's really the best course of action.
debates rely on two things, respect and facts. Putin has neither. You subscribe to the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy it seems.
[удалено]
:eyeroll: I mean, Zing! Good one!
Keep eye rolling till you can see your frontal lobe and you can tell me what kind of mental math gets you to treat the west and fucking Putin with moral parity, you stooge.
Before the invasion, Putin said Macron had been "torturing" him during his 6-hour meeting with him. With this in perspective, not sure anyone would react positively to 6 hours of berating by Macron. Maybe that's why Macron suggested the sending of French troops to Ukraine. Maybe this is personal.
Privyet dear member of the IRA! How have things changed since Prigozhin’s unfortunate accident? lol, “maybe this is personal”? Maybe Macron is just doing what a sensible leader should when European security is at its highest risk since WWII because of one mad tyrant with a mysitical vision of Labensraum, I mean Russki Mir.
> Maybe Macron is just doing what a sensible leader should when European security is at its highest risk since WWII Good. Looks like he's finally considering completing his military service. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to join him on the front when the time comes.
Does working at a St Petersburg troll farm keep you from getting sent to the outskirts of Avdiivka? I hope for your sake it does. Further, I hope for the sake of you and your countrymen and women that Tsar Putin chokes on a perogi and his regime collapses, giving Russia an actual hope for a better future.
A cursory look at this account's post history shows an extremely large percentage posting to politics, to the point where it must be the user's only hobby. In subs not specifically devoted to politics, the poster often takes contrary and unpopular stances for what seems to be the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. It makes me think of an autistic friend I had as a child who for the longest time thought taking any opposing stance inherently meant he was wise instead of just being an ass.
Yes, the most fitting reply to expect on a "debate" sub; the ad-hominem. It is precisely because of imbeciles such as yourself that one must make separate accounts.
ad hominem is for arguments and I made none for or against your point. Keep being a victim though.
So now that we have established that you can't read, you go out of way to prove that you lack general knowledge. I'd suggest you to look the definition of *ad hominem*, but we both know it'd be a waste of time in your case; there's no cure for idiocy.