Have you read your source? Not a single mention of nazis or the war in Donbas. So go read your own source and then come tell me how those demands are justified.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Good point, I mixed up the articles about this, the Guardian doesn't even list the demands one by one. Here's one that lists all demands, which don't list the Nazis or Donbas directly, though those have been complained about before (see Putin speech earlier on). Then you can see this slightly newer negotiation development which acknowledges the DPR and LPR and demands the end of militarisation there and denazify (and therefore the end of the paramilitary death squads).

Now, you don't seem to understand that Russia can demand whatever it wants, even different things that were not in previous demands. That means that they'll often drop or return to demands depending on their conditions, and I'm not Putin's personal spokesman and don't have to 100% agree with which of their demands is the most important. What prompted this whole conversation is what NATO could've done to de-escalate the conflict. Do you know a single guarantee made by NATO to reduce the likelyhood of war or prevent it going on for another 2 years with the risk of nuclear warfare? I'd be happy to hear it.

Also you seem to confuse the meaning of "justified" there. You asked for sources on what demands have been made, those are up in the first paragraph. They don't justify anything though, only prove that the demands have been made in the past. Now after that you need to verify the veracity of those demands, and here are some sources that you might enjoy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, on Azov and Nazis being trained and supplied by NATO and the Ukraine government, and just the wikipedia article on the War on Dombas because you don't seem to even be aware of it. Then once you come to a conclusion on whether the demands exist and are factual, you can decide if disbanding the Azov brigade and recognising the LPR and DPR are morally justifiable or not. "what sources?????"

cute how you ignored everything else, though. Makes you look very sensible and intellectual. You should make an account here

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How long are we going to talk in circles? I have been explaining how none of the demands are justified. Like you said Russia can demand whatever it wants, but whether those demands should be met depends on how reasonable or justified they are. It should be apparent that what NATO could've done to de-escalate also follows the pattern of satisfying reasonable demands. If none of the demands are reasonable there's nothing NATO can do to de-escalate, right? So, aside from the dissolution of Azov and recognizing LPR and DPR as legitimate (both of which are arguable whether NATO could even do something or if meeting those demands even matter considering they weren't even in the first demands) what else could've NATO done?

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay I'm going to stop you there. Do a proper analysis. You seem to want me to think your whole argument for you rather than making yourself clear.

First, have the demands ever been made? You flip flop on that a lot.

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

And only then can you tell me whether they are morally justifiable or not.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they're partly to blame for this war.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

You have a whole week to write because I won't reply until next Saturday, since I'm no longer cooking. Don't get too lonely.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And back with the vagueness.

We already established demands. The last two comments we've explicitly discussed demands. But don't worry, I've got you. Here's the official draft that we first discussed. Bunch of legal jargon so I'll condense it to some key points. I'll also add the points you brought up afterwards (the nazis and DPR and LPR)

No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.
No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.
No more NATO expansion, including Ukraine.
All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.
De-nazification of Ukraine
Recognition of DPR and LPR

Then, are the demands based in facts? You also seem to flip flop on whether that is true.

No idea where you get that considering I've pretty consistently said that they're unreasonable (with the exception of the nazi and DPR/LPR thing), which pretty much implies they're not based in facts.

And after that tell me why or why not can NATO validate and concede on those demands, and whether they’re partly to blame for this war.

Somehow I have to make your points? Whatever, lazyass.

No NATO forces from NATO members before 28 May 1997 may be deployed into any NATO member state that joined after 27 May 1997 unless Russia allows it.

NATO cannot segregate itself so obviously they can't comply with this.

No deployment of intermediate- and short-range missiles that could reach into Russia.

This one is the most reasonable one, but even that is not that clear cut. Some of those missiles are a part of the missile defense system that NATO won't remove so that's not a fulfillable demand. But NATO has given Russia a chance to come to an agreement here. Back in 2011 Biden visited Moscow to discuss a missile defense co-operation which Russia turned down. Similarly there was the IMF treaty (which also covers some of the missiles in question) that got scrapped under the pretense that Russia wasn't complying with the treaty. So one could make the argument that Russia themselves creates a situation where they could make such demands. Do you need sources for those or are you capable of googling those two things yourself? Eh fuck it, IMF wiki and missile defense co-operation that never got off the ground.

All NATO members cannot conduct any military activity in other countries in eastern Europe (including Ukraine), South Caucasus and Central Asia.

It's again one of those things that seems reasonable except for the fact that NATO countries that are in the EU literally cannot accept this. For instance Georgia is planning to join the EU. If Georgia joins the EU then they get protected by EDA which means it gets protected by the same countries that would here have to agree to never protect Georgia. It's an obvious conflict of interest for EU and thus by extension also for NATO.

De-nazification of Ukraine

Not sure what more NATO could do there. You don't seem to be aware that the US hasn't provided funds to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion since 2017. The biggest NATO member doesn't support the Nazi battalion. I really don't see what else NATO could do besides wag their finger at Ukraine who claims their battalion is not longer a nazi battalion. But I'll be happy to concede this point because I seriously doubt NATO doing something about the nazis would've deterred Russia. It didn't even make it into the first round of demands.

Recognition of DPR and LPR

I'll also concede this point mostly for the same reasons as the previous one. But also because Russia could've just walked into DPR and LPR like they did in Crimea and say "this is mine now". Nothing really happened over Crimea, nothing would've happened over those two regions either. The acknowledgement of those regions wouldn't have prevented the war, Russia wanted to take a bigger bite.

Since those are the only ones you cited right now (because your memory is very wonky), focus on Azov and the two independent republics.

How about no. Those two are the least relevant in the list of demands, they weren't even in first list of demands.

You have a whole week to write because I won’t reply until next Saturday, since I’m no longer cooking. Don’t get too lonely.

Don't worry. I'll pester you whenever you're online.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

!remindme ~~7 days~~ 1984 years

Edit: go away debate pervert