That is a very strange article. The headline is “How Boris Johnson Sabotaged Ukraine Russia Peace Deal In April” and the bulk of it is about how a former US National Security Council officer didn’t say that.
Frankly the NYT one seems a lot more convincing to me. That addition to the security guarantee clause is obviously completely unworkable.
Maybe find an article that says that then. The one you linked says that yes, they were close to an agreement, but at the last minute Russia inserted a clause that was a dealbreaker
What that link actually says:
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker. Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
No, but obviously all you know how to do is to make ridiculous straw man arguments.
If ethnic cleansing didn’t happen before the war started, ethnic cleansing did not cause the war.
Nobody made the argument that simply using cluster munitions equals ethnic cleansing on its own.
Saying “they’re doing ethnic cleansing” and backing it up with a link that’s just “they’re using cluster munitions” is literally exactly this
It is predominantly ethnically Russian, and those are the people who are being targeted.
The point I was making was that the only person who described themselves in terms of identity in that link called himself Ukrainian. This makes it very poor evidence for Ukraine targeting ethnic Russians.
Bad faith is arguing about something you have no understanding of and wasting everyone’s time. See this is what a bad faith argument looks like.
What exactly do you think I’m trying to convince you of that I haven’t been open and honest about? I said exactly why I do not think that that source is worth my time based on the five other sources you put it with and how you used them.
Clearly you didn’t watch the lecture if you need to ask that question as it clearly explains the demographics in Ukraine
I know what the demographics are. I have watched Mearsheimer’s lecture, but it really is not necessary to get an overview of something as basic as where different ethnicities are concentrated in Ukraine. The fact that there are a bunch of ethnic Russians living in that part is not evidence of ethnic cleansing by Ukraine. Neither is Russia feeling threatened by eastern European countries joining the EU or NATO.
the ethnic cleansing that western backed fascists started doing after the coup in 2014.
So your position is that the ethnic cleansing happened in the ~two months between Yanukovych fleeing Ukraine in February and the declarations of the DPR and LPR in April?
Under this interpretation, the headline could then read “New Polling Shows Significant Ukrainian Support for War to End the War”
You said Russia was being diplomatic. Nobody is arguing that powerful countries are often cruel. So again, if this is Russia’s diplomacy towards Ukraine, do you agree that America was diplomatic towards Afghanistan?
“Using cluster munitions” still does not equal “ethnic cleansing”
Maybe read up on how Ukraine was put together by USSR and what ethnicities live there.
Eastern Ukraine is not 100% ethnically Russian
If you think that spending an hour to educate yourself on a subject you’re debating is too much time
“Educate yourself on a subject” does not equal “reply to a social media comment”. I said the latter was not worth one hour, not the former. This is an extremely bad faith response to what I said.
That hour long video you refuse to watch documents ethnic cleansing in great detail.
See the thing is you put it alongside five other sources which you also said showed ethnic cleansing, but they did nothing of the sort. As such I see no reason to believe you on this.
Here’s a whole lecture you can watch on the problems that led to separatism
Yes, I know the Mearsheimer lecture. It is not about ethnic cleansing. So why are you bringing it up to back up your claim about ethnic cleansing?
Oh right, so do you consider America’s behaviour towards Afghanistan diplomatic then?
It’s not meaningful diplomacy to say “give us everything we want or we will take everything we want”
That’s a hard shift from “Russia is being diplomatic” to “Russia can just take what it wants”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
Use of cluster munitions against enemy troops is not ethnic cleansing. If you think it is, then Russia is guilty of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/31/1152743054/human-rights-watch-ukraine-landmines
As above: this is not ethnic cleansing, this is warfare against enemy troops and a tactic employed widely by Russia in Ukraine.
https://mronline.org/2023/07/30/russia-donbass-and-the-reality-of-the-conflict-in-ukraine/
“There is warfare in this warzone”. Which part of this article is about ethnic cleansing?
If the victims are describing themselves as Ukrainian, which ethnicity is Ukraine cleansing here in your opinion?
I’m sure you will understand that watching an hour-long documentary is not a reasonable expectation to respond to a fediverse comment.
https://www.kanekoa.news/p/osce-reports-reveal-ukraine-started
This is about ceasefire violations, not ethnic cleansing. It’s also amazing that they blame it entirely on Ukraine on an image that shows multiple explosions on both sides of the line on the first day. By the time the two sides have started shelling each other, the ceasefire is dead. The side that does more of it after that is not somehow more culpable for the end of the ceasefire.
Literally none of these links are about ethnic cleansing. War crimes? Possibly. Use of particularly nasty weapons? Yes. Ethnic cleansing? No.
There’s also the crucial problem that none of them are about anything from before the Donbas war started, so they are not an explanation for separatism in Donbas or Luhansk. This does not actually address anything brought up.
Are you referring to the language laws?
The “deal” requires Ukraine to cede a colossal amount of territory before negotiations even begin. Even if the Ukrainian leadership was willing to give up all of that for peace, doing so here would not actually even buy them peace, only a start to negotiations that could collapse at any time. That’s about as diplomatic an offer as Ukraine saying “pre-2014 borders and then we can talk.”
It used to be common! Over a century ago, sure, but it was
Yes, he is. It’s that you can usually expect FPTP elections to produce a winner from one of the two dominant parties. Since your vote does not count for anything if your candidate didn’t win in UK elections, you can use this information to instead pick your favourite of the two candidates that are likely to win and maximise your chances of seeing your preferred of the two win, as opposed to voting third party and achieving nothing. You don’t need to know how quickly a two party system entrenches itself for this to be useful. You just need to know if it already has and which parties are the dominant ones in your constituency.
It almost certainly does, but we still mustn’t be complacent. Instead we should aim for that stretch goal of knocking them below the Lib Dems. If nothing else it’d be really funny
Ahh, I hadn’t interpreted the comment that way. I thought that Jackthelad was suggesting Farage was being unfairly maligned by the article. My apologies if I got that wrong
I’m afraid I am completely unqualified to answer this beyond that Irene’s reign was a very messy one, ending with a rebellion against her. Her own son (the legal heir to the throne for who she was originally just regent) also rebelled against her earlier, and she had his eyes put out. It seems to me like Irene specifically was just absolutely ruthless enough to get past whatever societal rules may have been levelled against her
We thought we were the ones domesticating grass when we invented agriculture, but the grass isn’t the one that changed how it lives