War, what is it good for?

[Octavious]

One imagines so. Although having said, back before the West decided to block all access to Russian media because it doesn't trust its people, Putin was very clear in his communications that it was a special military operation to liberate the Russian speaking Donbas and denazify the Ukraine. Unless his message has changed significantly since then the first outcome can be met without much difficulty, and the second can't really be proven one way or another... so I'm guessing if Putin says it's happened then as far as the Russians are concerned it has happened.

But yeah, we've been denied access to up to date information about the Russian perspective so all that may have changed.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin suggested he holds much broader and more imperialistic war aims.

The NATO-encirclement theory is somewhat comforting because there is a certain rationale to it.

The "de-Nazification" rationale is more worrying because, despite some Nazi sympathizers in Ukraine, it lacks much credibility (Zelensky being Jewish) and its a totally unfalsifiable war aim (when is "de-Nazification" accomplished?)

Most concerning is the idea that Putin genuinely believes in the historical invalidity of Ukrainian statehood and is actively seeking to restore the Russian Empire - not merely for security reasons, but out of a conviction that Russia has the right to dominate its neighbors.

[Octavious]

The "de-Nazification" rationale is more worrying because, despite some Nazi sympathizers in Ukraine, it lacks much credibility (Zelensky being Jewish) and its a totally unfalsifiable war aim (when is "de-Nazification" accomplished?)

Some? Half of the news stories we had about Ukraine before the war were about far right football hooligans. And the Azov Battalion were fully fledged Nazis. To quote from the BBC

The volunteer Azov Battalion is a case in point. Run by the extremist Patriot of Ukraine organisation, which considers Jews and other minorities "sub-human" and calls for a white, Christian crusade against them, it sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia: a modified Wolf's Hook, a black sun (or "Hakensonne") and the title Black Corps, which was used by the Waffen SS.

That Ukraine had a Nazis problem isn't in doubt. The Russians clearly exaggerated it a great deal, but they didn't invent it. Maybe the disbandment of battalions like Azov will be sufficient to satisfy much of their criteria

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yes "some" lol, most Ukrainians clearly aren't Nazis. I'm surprised you're picking this up as an issue at all. You seem to rather like Nazis and are hoping they take power in Germany.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

To put a finer point on it, the far right parties in Ukraine never recieved more than 10% of the popular vote (i.e., less than in Germany).

Azov was a volunteer paramilitary that was folded into the official army in order to de-radicalized it.

Russia has at least as large of a fringe right (Prigozhin and the Wagner group).

The idea that this was anything like grounds for invasion is pure propoganda.

[CaptainFritz28]

Yes "some" lol, most Ukrainians clearly aren't Nazis. I'm surprised you're picking this up as an issue at all. You seem to rather like Nazis and are hoping they take power in Germany.

Ooh, Bert out with an Ad Hominem. A relatively new tactic from this debater, his choice of when to use it has been shaky in many instances, which, added to the unreliability of the tactic itself, leaves the audience wondering if the good Esquire is experienced enough in such language as to be using it so boldly.

Will it work? Will Oct be so offended by Bert's name-calling of him, especially to a name which he has repeatedly and clearly denied holding any sympathy to, that he concedes the debate? Only time will tell.

[CaptainFritz28]

The idea that this was anything like grounds for invasion is pure propoganda.

To be honest, I never particularly took interest in who or how many Nazis there are in Ukraine, precisely because no matter the amount, this would be true. "De-Nazification" is one of many terms that can easily be thrown about as a vague excuse for war, but which, in my opinion, is absolutely nowhere near justification for invasion. I wholeheartedly agree with Bert on at least this point.

[Octavious]

Yes "some" lol, most Ukrainians clearly aren't Nazis. I'm surprised you're picking this up as an issue at all. You seem to rather like Nazis and are hoping they take power in Germany.

You seem to have a real difficulty in telling apart a desire to be accurate about something and supporting that thing. The AfD are not Nazis, and if they were wouldn't be allowed to exist. They are generally hard right, and may well have a Nazis problem within their membership. So in many ways they are like Ukraine .

The Azov Battalion, by contrast, was overtly pro-Nazis. They were about as Nazi as it is possible to be without being an actual Nazi. The Ukrainian football ultras were openly far right and led to talks of Ukraine being banned from Euro 2012.

Was this grounds for invasion? Of course not. Was there genuine persecution against Russian speakers in Ukraine prior to the war? I genuinely don't know, but again nothing significant enough to justify invasion. Does Russia have a Nazi problem too? Yes. I've never disputed this.

But as Ukraine had genuine Nazi types it is possible to point to the removal of some of the more prominent ones as evidence of de-Nazification. If Putin is suitably motivated to declare this a win he can do so without a great deal of difficulty

[CaptainFritz28]

But as Ukraine had genuine Nazi types it is possible to point to the removal of some of the more prominent ones as evidence of de-Nazification. If Putin is suitably motivated to declare this a win he can do so without a great deal of difficulty

While I agree, it seems more likely, based on the nature of high level politicians, of which Putin is not exempt, that the inherent ambiguity of de-Nazification will be used by him as an excuse for further demands, rather than to prove that he's won something. Perhaps it will be both, but the likelihood of the former seems high.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The AfD aren't Nazis. They just have Nazi policies and Nazi sympathizing members who are not censured by the party.... Reminds me a bit of the years' old debate that opened this thread, where Oct went to bat to make the case that Putin wasn't a "dictator" based on what appeared to be his own bespoke definition lol. These are distinctions without a difference to most people.

But I'm glad to hear no one thinks the "de-Nazification" rationale passes muster. Like Oct, I hope the fuzzy logic of "de-Nazification" goes both ways — if it's a meaningless excuse to go to war, hopefully it serves as a meaningless excuse to pursue peace (assuming Russia/Putin have that as a goal).

[Jamiet99uk]

DOGE is a fraud and is trying to conceal its fraud:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doge-just-made-harder-track-161806265.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJAxTCjLZd8jNSDOc2EI35JxsbwGktyAiRSp492ck9N6kWoerkKta_OvyDigfIw6i6_T5Gvyx5_ZIaAdu6U6n3YGW7tT6MAaHU6TDvlFJSK6z6c1mjD-HJs0X7gC9BbrdNHScgXKz12KELvgmi3-ANWSkrPw6JdYGPzQeTSeX6Qb

Fuck Musk.

[Jamiet99uk]

Whoops wrong thread.

[Jamiet99uk]

Back to Neo-Nazi News:

Felix Klein, Germany's top antisemitism commissioner, has joined a series of other French and German politicians in pulling out of attending Israel's latest antisemitism conference, because Israel has invited too many Neo-Nazis to attend.

Shit you could not make up.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Israel is at it again, unilaterally ending the ceasefire for what looks like the calculated political advantage of Netanyahu, who needs to keep outright warmongers on his side of the aisle until a budget is passed later this month.

Trump's outrageous plan to just finish the genocide seems to have emboldened Israel's pro-war right. If it was meant to cajole Arab nations into finding some alternative solution (a rather charitable interpretation), that gambit so far hasn't worked.

This one looks hard to recover from — what good is an agreement with Israel, if they will break their agreements willy nilly?

[Jamiet99uk]

Fuck Israel.

They want to kill every Palestinian.

[Octavious]

Did they unilaterally end the ceasefire? My understanding was that the ceasefire was agreed to a certain date in the hope that by that time either an extension or an agreed 2nd phase could be implemented, but that these talks failed and the ceasefire was no longer in effect. I wasn't aware of any agreement being broken.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The Economist reported it as a unilateral end to the ceasefire by Israel, and their reporting is typically pretty generous to Israel's point of view.

[Octavious]

Curious. According to the BBC's reporting the ceasefire was intended to be 3 stages. Stage one started mid January, and was agreed to last 42 days. What was meant to take place a fortnight after the start of stage one were the opening of negotiations for stage two, which if successful would have established a permanent ceasefire. These stage two negotiations failed and the 42 days agreed for stage one ran out. Attempts to extend stage one also failed

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I read some more in this. You're right that the first phase of the ceasefire was agreed to last 42 days, and that negotiations for the second phase failed. However, the key issue is why those negotiations failed and what happened next.

The ceasefire agreement included provisions for automatic extensions if talks were ongoing, and there was still diplomatic effort to extend it. Instead of pushing further negotiations, Israel launched large-scale airstrikes on Gaza, killing hundreds. This wasn't just the ceasefire "running out"—it was an active decision to end any chance of extension through force.

So while it's technically true that the first phase expired, Israel unilaterally resumed hostilities.

[Octavious]

Maybe so, but there's quite a distinction between resuming hostilities after a ceasefire expires and breaking agreements willy nilly. It's not a mere technicality or petty semantics.

Whether Israel deliberately acted in such a way that the ceasefire was doomed to fail is another matter, and I suspect one that could argued about for some time. But considering how Israel were quick to cut off power supplies to Gaza again I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.