History Learner
Well-known member
Cope and seethe, because that’s all you can do as Russia wins. How’s Azov doing in Mariupol?
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
Cope and seethe, because that’s all you can do as Russia wins. How’s Azov doing in Mariupol?
How is Russia winning?
They have what...multiple BTGs getting encircled north of Kiev, they have YET to take Mariupol or only recently taken it.
Kharkiv stands, Khearson has multiple counter attacks newring it.
How is Russia winning?
History Learner
Well-known member
Are we talking about reality or the figments of your imagination you pretend actually exist?
Pretty good given their job was to meatgrinder Russia's forces.Cope and seethe, because that’s all you can do as Russia wins. How’s Azov doing in Mariupol?
History Learner
Well-known member
Unfortunate, then, they categorically failed to do that. I’d love to see the evidence for the claim they were attempting this though; makes their consistent begging for relief and the numerous examples of them attempting to flee disguised as civilians all the more pathetic.
I am literally looking at what is being shown to us.
Kiev is basically done and they are going to try and get SOMETHING out of this. Kiev is not one
History Learner
Well-known member
And what you are claiming is not reflected at all in what is being shown.
No, I read what you said, and what you posted.
The link does not say anything about Ukraine giving up on territorial integrity, which is what you claimed they had done.
Also, if you would look in the Invasion thread, I did give sources for where I had heard that Moscow had removed those terms from the ceasefire language.
This isn't trying to play a game of 'gatcha' with you, though you seem to be self-'gatcha-ing' in how you reply to me, and I was simply looking for sources who had claimed what you said they claimed, which you didn't back up. The link you gave me did not say Zelenski had given up on getting Crimea or the Donbass back; the claim isn't all that hard to believe, but I wanted actual sources that said it, and the link you gave did not.
So you can go round and round trying to insult my reading comprehension and complaining of me tryng to 'gatcha' you, or you can actually produce sources with what you claimed they said.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I doubt Ukraine will stay in one piece.
That's not quite up to memetic soviet bloc automotive industry bad, but that's still shockingly inept.
It's an unarmored 4 cylinder minivan from 1965. I have significant doubts about how effective it could possibly be in rough terrain.
If a 4 cylinder minivan from 1965 is the fastest vehicle in your scout column, you have serious problems.
Last edited:
History Learner
Well-known member
So we can conclude you either don't understand basic terms or you're being a hack here, so which is it?
When peace talks first started, Zelensky was firm that the territory integrity of Ukraine was not up for discussion, and now he has openly stated bilateral talks about the status of Crimea and the Donbass are open to be had on a proposed 15 year basis with Russia; that is by definition a weakening of their previous stance. If you're having talks about the status of your territory, then it is not possible to also be standing firm on the position of its integrity because talks in of themselves concede that it is, to say, not set in stone.
Not that hard to figure out, which is why you're having to outright lie about me saying he's already given up on it.
History Learner
Well-known member
I think it was a case of both, the Russians went in hoping they could win a quick victory but being fully prepared to play the long game; in effect, having both Plans A and B going at the same time rather than defaulting to the latter after the former. Bill Roggio noted as much a few days ago, based on the Russian air campaign being consistent with a "wearing down" approach from the beginning.
Where exactly did you hear the underlined part is what I have been asking.
Because the link to Axios did not have that in it, and I am not seeing it anywhere but in your claims.
So again, source for the underlined part.
Continuing to just insult me and repeat the same lines is not the same as giving a source, either.
History Learner
Well-known member
Again, because you didn't ask for that, and I had already given a source; I'm not a mind reader, and I was responding to the argument you actually made in the post.
Ukraine offers 15-year talks with Russia on status of Crimea
The issues of the temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and Crimea will be taken out of the main part of the international agreement on security guarantees for Ukraine and will be discussed separately.
"As for such issues as Crimea, this is a separate clause of the agreement, in which we propose to enshrine the position of Ukraine and Russia to hold bilateral talks on the status of Crimea and Sevastopol for 15 years," Mykhailo Podolyak, Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said at a briefing in Istanbul, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.
At the same time, according to him, the Russian side is invited to stipulate that Ukraine and Russia will not use military or armed forces to resolve the issue of Crimea over this period.
Podolyak also informed that the issue of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was singled out as another clause, which should be discussed in the negotiations between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia.
At the same time, according to him, the Russian side is invited to stipulate that Ukraine and Russia will not use military or armed forces to resolve the issue of Crimea over this period.
Podolyak also informed that the issue of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was singled out as another clause, which should be discussed in the negotiations between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia.
I did ask for it, I asked for sources for your claim, which it was among; now you are just trying to be a pedantic asshat because I forced you to actually go find sources, instead of just taking your word.
As for the article from the link; it looks like Ukraine has not given up sovereignty over those areas, only said/agree that it is a discussion for a different part of the deal that is not being gone over at this point.
So some of what you claimed was kinda true, but you exaggerated it substantially and made positive claims about Ukraine's negotiating position which even this article did not back up to the extent you claimed initially.
Cope and seethe, because that’s all you can do as Russia wins. How’s Azov doing in Mariupol?
Russians love Azov as their useful bogeyman:
A far-right battalion has a key role in Ukraine's resistance. Its neo-Nazi history has been exploited by Putin | CNN
President Vladimir Putin framed the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special mission" to protect Russian speakers from genocide at the hands of "neo-Nazis."
www.cnn.com
History Learner
Well-known member
No, you're making up bullshit excuses and engaging in blatant goal post shifting because your gotchas didn't work. I've provided two different links anytime you directly asked for a source; your stance basically consists of you arguing with me about the claim and then backtracking to whine about a source you didn't ask for until after the fact. As for what I said, I am 100% correct and you're flat out lying with that last paragraph. Let's recall what I actually said:
Not a single claim I said here is wrong, you are literally putting words into my mouth.
No, I'm actually reading the articles and links and what you say.
This is what you said first:
You said they had abandoned insistence on territorial integrity, which is not what the links said; it said the talks over those subjects was effectively tabled for now, without a resolution either way, while other parts of the ceasefire deal are being dealt with.
You exaggerated what was being said, then got snippy when I questioned you about it, then got pedantic about sources when your first one didn't say what you claimed, and the second link showed you were exaggerating your claims about Ukraine.
I didn't set out to 'gatcha' you, I actually wanted to see what was happening; however your attitude towards me in the replies shows you know I caught you exaggerating, and now you are ass-mad about it.
But keep on trying to act like I'm just making shit up or trying to 'gatcha' you; it's no skin off my back if your show yourself to just be another Russian shill.
History Learner
Well-known member
You're a liar, plain and simple, and now are simply playing stupid. Zelensky directly stated before that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is not open to discussion, and now has conceded that talks can take place upon that on a 15 year basis. That is exactly what I said, that is 100% true and you are lying to the contrary because you know I proved you wrong.
The only one "exaggerating" is you, by misrepresenting what I said to suggest I implied he had already conceded Donbass and Crimea formally; that's not what I said anywhere, which is why you didn't quote me saying that. What I did say, as you quoted, is that they have given up on territorial integrity as a demand not open for discussion; if they are having discussion upon it, for 15 years no less, then by definition their position has weakened on this. In principle, as well, if they are even discussing it as a topic, then they have conceded it in general because what else is their to discuss otherwise?
No, I just go by what is in the links, and what you said.
I never said you said he had ceded Donbass or Crimea, I said I had not seen anything talking about anything regarding territorial integrity being up for discussion or on the table a this point. Particularly not 'abandoned' talk of territorial integrity as you first claimed.
The first link you provided didn't actually back up much of any of what you claimed, and the second link showed that the issue of territorial integrity was being shelved while other discussions were going on, with the possibility of discussions about the status of the LPR/DPR and Crimea being posited as the '15 year discussion'.
'Discussion' does not mean Ukraine has given up on getting those areas back (though I had rather expected they'd probably lose them, unless Russia really screwed the pooch), it means that they are not about to let Russia declare they are keeping those territories and are seeming to want to work on the issue of those areas once the rest of the agreement is sorted out. I expect Kiev wants an actual open, fair referendum in those areas as to what they want to be, not the farce of a 'referendum' that happened when Crimea was annexed or what the LPR/DPR did on their own.
So you can keep ree'ing about me being full of bullshit or trying to 'gatcha' you; however it won't change that you seriously exaggerated what was/is being said. I had simply wanted a source for the claim you made initially, because it wasn't outlandish, but I wanted to see more than just your word for it.
Your replies however showed you are just another Russian shill who is ass-mad about people not buying your bullshit on your word alone, and the way you dealt with me asking for sources and critiquing your exaggerations also shows you have no desire to argue things in good faith.