>

Well you did make me feel a little better about the situation.  I hope it goes just as you say
Russian debate tactics are so circular and silly. I’ve encountered them a few times on this very site. It’s like talking to a brick wall, pretty pointless. They don’t make anything resembling a good point but they’ll talk in circles until your brain turns to goo if you let them. >


Invading Ukraine is wrong.

But what about when you went to Iraq?

That was wrong too but what does it have to do with invading Ukraine?

But what about your war crimes in Iraq?

War crimes are wrong no matter where they're committed. 

So you admit the West is guilty of war crimes in Iraq?

We're talking about Ukraine.

But what about your war crimes in Iraq? >

TLDR : whataboutism >

Whataboutism is not necessarily a fallacy, it can be a perfectly valid thing if used well. Russia just uses it wrong. 
For example: 
Russia: we are here to denazify Ukraine.
World: why? Are Nazis bad? 
Russia: yes. 
World: so what about Aleksey Milchakov and his "Rusich" batallion, who is explicitly a neo-nazi, to the point where he critiqued the administration of "LNR" for antifascism? Who explicitly condones and advocates for war crimes on his Telegram channel? >

Whataboutism is never logically sound.
It's a non-sequitur to the question at hand, shifting the topic of discussion away, and seeks to discredit the source of a claim rather than looking at the validity and soundness of the claim being made.
The statement "if X is bad then any case of X is bad" is sound but whataboutism is "you say x is bad but you have done x which is bad so let me do x which is bad". It's smooth-brain shit.
Hurts to hear but hypocrites can be right. Would you ignore a smoker who got lung cancer saying don't smoke? Or would you tell them that they have smoked so you deserve to as well? >

Whataboutism is perfectly sound when it points out at a hypocricy of a party that tries to get a moral leverage. It's not only "you do X, therefore I do too," but "you say you are against X but you're doing it yourself, therefore you are lying/have a hidden agenda." >

The idea that youre saying someone is holding a beleif incencerely has nothing to do with the soundness of that beleif.
Again it's attacking the source of a claim rather than the claim.
Lol is high-school logic really that hard for people? >


Lol is high-school logic really that hard for people?

Nice fallacy you have there. >

I said "you're wrong AND you're dumb"  not "you're wrong BAUCAUSE you're dumb".
I guess it must be hard >

Yet another fallacy. >


Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused Japan and Western countries of convening the meeting without any intention of thinking “systemically and impartially” about the rule of law.

Look at this. It's as if they're living on another planet. Crime of aggression, crime of genocide, 56,000 criminal acts charged against invaders... >

Russia seems oblivious to the fact that the outside world can hear their internal rhetoric and how contradictory it is to statements made for an international audience. >

They want to be able to a) do what they want; b) say what they want about it; and c) influence behaviour by what they choose to say about it.
If they want to annex a territory, they want to a) do it; b) not worry about being truthful about their intentions; and c) try to stall responses by other nations by confusing them with mixed signals.
If they were to say “we’re going to invade”, then they invade, and they admit they invaded because they wanted to annex territory, then the response from other nations would have been quicker and will be quicker next time, as there won’t be confusion in the populace about what those countries should commit to the problem.
They aren’t worried about looking foolish in the western press, where we expect talk to bear some relation to actions, given that’s a fundamental of democracy and re-election.
Putin doesn’t need to be re-elected, he just needs to keep certain domestic groups on his side, and playing games with other countries in their media helps him with those groups where trying to be truthful would limit his options. >

I kinda think that doesnt matter anymore. If they pull this shit again in another country the response will be even swifter. >

That’s what people thought after Georgia, and after Ukraine in 2014. Perhaps there will be a better response next time, but eventually the memory fades and the strategy works again. >

Russias only real saving grace was and is that people really don't want to go to war. They were willing to give him concessions under the impression that if they did, hs would fuck off and people could continue with their lives(aside from his victims, sadly).
At this point Putin made it clear he's both not going to stop, ever. Its also been made clearhowever that he overplayed his hand and that Russia as a country can be hurt, badly, by getting involved in this war.
The goal since this current phase of the conflict began has largely been to hurt the Russian milirary so badly it can never challenge anyone again and destabalize Russia so much it can't even THINK of trying this again for the forseeable future. >

As if Russia will listen to anyone at this point.  So long as Putin remain in power Russia will keep on adding more charges on war atrocity and crime against humanity. >

Thing is, it's not just Putin. The entire Russian government is like this. If they weren't, Putin would be dead already. Look at Navalny. That guy has more lives than a cat. Navalny is Putin's greatest competition. He's locked up and nearly dead. Putin has huge support in the government. His critics say he hasn't been brutal enough. Any replacement for Putin will have to go harder to prove they aren't weak. >

Or a replacement will have to push reform and create openness with the rest of the world to improve the quality of life for Russians, because otherwise their life will just become far, FAR worse. >

Radical nationalists are so well implemented in Russia that if, somehow, a "conciliatory" government came in power, they would probably be coup'd within weeks.
As of right now the two main factions are the pro-army (Shoigu, Gerasimov) and the pro-wagner/other nut jobs (Prighozhin but also Kadyrov and Strelkov) >

This is part of what bugs me.
Posited.  The invasion is not the work of just one man.  Russia is just completely fucked with no way back to being part of the world.
If that is true, and everyone seems to think it is, why do we allow them to continue to exist as a state? >

The answer is quite obvious: they have nukes >

The US and many other countries do, too. >

That’s why Russia allows them to exist too… >

In that case, I recommend settling this with conventional weapons >

You're oversimplifying the existence of Nuclear Weapons >

I don't see how Putin can back out and save face. He will have gained nothing for Russia. >

I don’t see how Russia can back out and save Putin. >

What's important is that this shows
 Japan is closed to Russia as a way to bypass the sanctions.
Closed with the full support of the Japanese government.
It moves Japan a step closer to being part of a world wide version of NATO. >


Japan is closed to Russia as a way to bypass the sanctions

Wasn't that always the case? Relations between the two countries has always been strained. And that's putting it lightly >

Not really. The region where Japan buys most of its Russian oil from is exempt from the oil price cap. >

Ok so tell that to the guy who says it's closed then lol. Sounds like the government has no power >

Yeah good point, I just replied to you because you asked the question >

Ok maybe I am confused though. Did they close the loophole now or does it remain open? There's such a vague discussion and you got the details lol >

Well yes that does make sense. I'm getting all my oil from Canada for the same reason >

Stfu Ruzzia. When have they ever cared about the “rule of law” lmao. Don’t urge them to do anything, tell them they’re going to continue to die in Ukraine till they collapse as a country. Than maybe they’ll understand they aren’t going to win. >

Putin is the last of the cold war bullies. >

Kissinger is still alive. >

Behind the Bastards did a great series on him.  One of the worst individuals to exist and it's cruel fate that he is still alive >

Technically living longer is a fate worse than death for the bastard. 
As he ages, he loses more of his physical abilities, eventually, he'll rely on having tubes and other stuff plugged into him just to do basic stuff like breathing and moving. And he'll feel every moment of it. His strength gradually drains till he is a husk of himself.
I do hope he is still mentally sound when he is physically wasted so he can suffer for his sins.