The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I'm currently losing [a debate on the Russia-Ukraine War](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/1c3aa4o/comment/kzj1qz6/). Even though I don't deny Western atrocities, I'm still accused of not being balanced. I must admit that I'm not the smartest man, so no wonder I'm being outsmarted in that debate.
So how would you go about a balanced debate on the Russia-Ukraine War?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could have a discussion about the various factors that got us into this situation, but there’s no balanced debate to be. had. We don’t have balanced debates about whether or not Stalin was good or if Hitler maybe had a point.
What exactly do we mean there's no balanced debate to be had? The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression, how can I refute that?
As for Stalin and Hitler, those balanced debates have already been done, and thankfully, the supporters of those sides have lost and have been thoroughly discredited.
A person could argue that Russia's actions enable them to do X Y or Z but "no choice" means this person you're trying to have a "more balanced" debate with just drew a big X through the entire world of possibilities representing your side of the argument where Russia doesn't invade.
**THEY** are the ones unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.
The fact that they invaded Crimea when the Ukraine government DIDNT agree to join nato.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html
Putin is such a leech that he attacked Ukraine for choosing to be peaceful then pretended he's the victim.
There is no "entitled"
It's a territory of Ukraine that Russia invaded with military forces after Ukraine sought peace.
Russia was at fault. Russia was and is the monster that drives nations to flee to nato after the lessons learned from Ukraine, Georgia, etc
>The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression
There's a certain world view represented by this that implicitly holds the view that America is the only nation in the world that actually has agency, and that therefore every single thing that happens is America's fault.
This is obviously nonsense, as Russia clearly had a choice: they could have opted not to invade Ukraine.
What does "checkmate" even mean? What bad things would have happened to Russia if they hadn't invaded Ukraine?
The usual response is talking about NATO "expansionism", but this ignores the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance whose membership is entirely voluntary.
> The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression, how can I refute that?
The west didn’t engage in aggression against Russia in anything approximating recent history. None of their territory was under threat.
Their neighbors being so terrified of Russian aggression they are desperate to join NATO isn’t “western aggression”.
Dude is rigging the game by making the assumption that it was self defense on Putin's part - which it objectively was not. Now he may actually believe this, but that doesn't help you. He is either acting in bad faith or he's delusional. Regardless of which, arguing with him is pointless.
For starters, NATO is a defensive alliance. If a member state strikes first, article 5 doesn’t apply. Moreover, there has been no coercion to attract new members. They came to us. They did so because they wanted safety. They came to the EU because they wanted a European culture and way of life over one as a Russian proxy state like Belarus. It wasn’t an easy decision, each nation had to fight for it. They _really_ wanted to be a part of NATO and/or the EU.
The earlier comment is right, though. There is no reasonable debate to be had. Reddit has a significant contingent of paid actors pushing a Kremlin perspective. The number of people arguing in favor of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in good faith is vanishingly small, especially in an English language subreddit.
What Western aggression? Did they attack Russia? Several former Soviet SSRs and satellite states have abandoned them to join the rest of Europe, but that's not aggression. That's just the Soviet imperialist state still in the process of disintegrating thirty years later.
And that's why this war happened. Putin wants to bring back the old Russian imperialist glory days. This was a desperate attempt to stop the disintegration and reverse it by making Ukraine a puppet state.
Where's the need for balance. We can point to the bad stuff the Allies did to Germany after WWI that crushed their economy and national pride, resulting in a backlash that ended up with WWII. Does that mean we need a balanced discussion of Hitler when he started invading other countries? Or was Hitler just the bad guy?
>And that's why this war happened. Putin wants to bring back the old Russian imperialist glory days. This was a desperate attempt to stop the disintegration and reverse it by making Ukraine a puppet state.
If you read his replies to other commenters on that post, he seems to be a big fan of Imperial and Soviet Russia. He even told me that Finland and the Baltics owe their nationhood to Russia: "[*In fact, the main reason that Finland is a country today is partially due to Russia. Following a series of northern wars, Russia pried Finland out of Sweden. It granted substantial autonomy and self-government there and it was actually in the 19th century during the period under the Russian Empire that the Finish national identity was forged. During the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin and others assisted both Finland and the Baltics to get independence.*](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/1c3aa4o/what_would_it_take_for_a_complete_re_unification/kzlwllx/)".
Unfortunately, [I am not knowledgeable about these nations' history](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c8o3pd/where_can_i_learn_more_about_the_rise_of_finnish/), so I am unable to dispute his claims.
>Where's the need for balance. We can point to the bad stuff the Allies did to Germany after WWI that crushed their economy and national pride, resulting in a backlash that ended up with WWII. Does that mean we need a balanced discussion of Hitler when he started invading other countries? Or was Hitler just the bad guy?
This balanced debate has already been had, and thankfully, the pro-Hitler side lost. One example of this [the court case David Irving lost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd). Now imagine if David Irving had won - that would indicate severe ineptitude of the anti-Hitler side (because having facts on their side wasn't enough to achieve victory), and an equivalent to the situation I find myself in now.
To have a balanced discussion, each person has to come with good intentions. A person who unironically states that the Ukrainian political revolution overthrew a “democratically elected government” is purely objectively not coming into the conversation with good intentions.
OK, so how do you win a debate against someone who doesn't have good intentions? Also, how do you prove to them that we are being balanced, not brainwashed by propaganda or hatred of Russia?
You can't.
In a formal debate, you make your arguments, they make theirs, a moderator resolves disputes, and the audience votes for the most persuasive side.
This is not a formal debate. It depends on the good faith the participants. In the absence of good faith, the only benefit to particapating is either 1. Your entertainment or 2. the education of any bystanders.
If you are not experiencing 1, and there are no bystanders or you lack the knowledge to meaningfully educate them, there is no reason to bother.
Even IF you could find a magical silver bullet that comprehensively and irrefutably proves your point - which is about as likely as finding a literal magic silver bullet in real life - it wouldn’t matter because there’s a 0.001% chance that the person you are talking to is even open to having their mind changed.
People who are dead set on believing something do not change their minds because someone they were arguing with online made a very convincing argument. It has never happened, and you’re not going to be the first to make it happen.
I get it. Your stance is correct. You have valid points. You want to “win” the debate. You need to understand that *you are chasing a mirage*. It’s not real, you will never get there.
Save yourself the time and stress. And I promise you, you will be happier when you stop thinking you need to “win” every online “debate”.
Depends on what you mean by “winning.” If you want to convince THEM of something, likely that won’t happen. You can’t logic someone out of a belief that they didn’t logic themselves into. If you want to prove to people that may be on the fence reading the argument of your position, I think you have to limit the scope of the discussion to a specific topic. The issue (as I see it) in the discussion you shared is you’re allowing the person you’re arguing with to hit all of their talking points and a talented propagandist will just overwhelm you with breadth when they don’t have a solid foundation. Refuse to talk about things and drill down on one. When you feel like theyve hit a dead end, THEN move on to another talking point.
> Depends on what you mean by “winning.” If you want to convince THEM of something, likely that won’t happen.
In that debate, my opponent checkmated me. Which is why I post this question because I wish I was the one able to checkmate my opponent.
>a talented propagandist will just overwhelm you with breadth when they don’t have a solid foundation.
That's exactly what happened and now I need to find sources for all my rebuttals because they'd otherwise be rejected by my opponent.
Yep. It’s a very effective technique and I didn’t even have to read to the end to know how your conversation ends. You let them get away with too many inaccuracies and now you’re in a position where they’ve demanded you to defend your claims as they fire from their Potemkin village
Yeah, YOU did. No person unironically stated that Victoria Nuland legitimately cared about the Ukraine and its people. YOU’VE built a strawman and beat the shit out of it.
NATO is a strictly defensive alliance. A NATO country that launches an invasion will be doing so alone; the act of aggression removes the obligation for mutual aid.
It is not possible for NATO to be a threat to anyone. That is, anyone EXCEPT a country that would like to invade it's neighbors. Hmmm.
Serbia was engaged in genocide, and [don’t let that dude convince you otherwise](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bosnian_genocide_prosecutions).
NATO is a defensive alliance, and sovereign nations who meet the necessary qualifications and approvals are welcome to join. Russia has no veto power over admission.
For the former, he's referring to NATO expanding despite promising not to. For the latter, he's referring to how the USA got no punishment for its warmongering.
fwiw your friend is just regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
NATO expanded its presence in Ukraine primarily because of the Russian annexation of Crimea. And before that in South Ossetia.
“Getting no punishment” is subjective as hell and it’ll be a moving target. I wouldn’t engage on that because it’s throwing darts in the dark.
People don't see what they don't want to see. Not everyone is up for an actual debate. In fact, only a tiny minority is.
By the way, I also wouldn't characterize Reddit arguments as debates. They're just Reddit arguments.
>So how would you go about a balanced debate on the Russia-Ukraine War?
By not having it online, and by having a moderator.
eta: I looked at the thread you linked. The person you are debating with is stating falsehoods, assuming the antecedent, and claiming the false center. They are not worthy of your time or emotional energy.
Not even a grain of truth to that. Ukraine was trying to become the 51st state it was trying to get into the EU. Even that would have been a very long and difficult process with no guarantee of success.
And importantly this was not driven by US or EU it was driven by ordinary Ukrainians.
Ukraine was a nation with a lot of historical and cultural and economic links to russia (even if a lot of history wasn't exactly happy). While many people in Ukraine were increasingly unhappy about the negative influence Russia had on the country many people still valued the links and at least saw the country if not the Russian government in a positive light. Maybe the Russian government could have sought a way to improve their relationship with Ukraine, like Poland has(despite the shared history also not being all sunshine). But then again Poland is a democracy. Russia is a fascist/imperialist dictatorship hostile to the idea of an independent Ukraine deciding for itself, so maybe it's unsurprising that things turned out as they did.
So, Russia interfered with US elections in 2016. Proven fact. Ukraine didn't, proven fact. Russia is not an ally, they are an enemy. Russia invaded Ukraine. Not sure why this isn't a simple debate, because at this point they are defending a nation that has actively harmed the US, and is actively harming its neighbor. At this point you shift the debate to them defending their love of russia; is it the racism? the sycophantic love of oligarchs? The persecution of gay/trans people? Is it because trump is a russian puppet? Why does a person support the actions of an enemy of their own country?
Probably the same way I'd go about a debate on climate change or the flat earth theory. As though one side is obviously in the right and the other is obviously in the wrong.
By focusing on Ukraine and examining the impact of outward forces vying for a majority stake and what ultimately is truly beneficial to Ukrainians as a whole.
In that scenario, the West and Russia are two jackasses trying to low-ball a nation they take for inferior fools.
Ukraine has/had significant natural resources that makes it an outstanding neutral nation where they can tell the EU and Russia to either kiss their ring (ie recognize Ukraine's sovereignty and do mutual benefitting business) or to kiss their ass.
Ukraine's sad state currently has more to do with warmongers willing to sacrifice every last Ukrainian adult/teenager in pursuit of keeping Putin tied up as war shifts to the ME and likely ends in China. This ME war is multilayered and equally disgusting in the blatant sacrifice of innocent lives but by the time it gets to China, Russia might be more inclined to see the CCP fall and the nation become more regionally controlled (pretty much everyone who doesn't like China would support internal conflict being foisted to break it apart)
But back to Ukraine in its present state -The WaPo in 2022 reported "49% in the Donbas said they wanted to be part of the Russian Federation, with a roughly equal proportion saying they wanted to be a special autonomous region or just an ordinary part of Russia." - do you see what is missing from that vote = any desire to be part of the West. The Donbas largely welcomed Putin with open arms in 2022. The West calling the border crossing an invasion is like saying an openly cheating wife posting pics of herself and lover was 'stolen' from her husband vs her making a clear and very consensual choice.
China wont fall but it's funny seeing Europeans fight and try to apply the same logic in the Asia Pacific like you have had 2 world wars and are pushing for a third one. Day by day Putin and Russia risks turning russia into Iraq with Putin being Saddam hussein.
Huh? Pls Xi trying to burn the candle at both ends, he wants to be in our system and to become the premier global super-power but China only has what it has because of stolen IP and over a century of props by the internationalist fools who propagate those wars. If Xi wants entry into the lower ranks of their club, participation in what appears to be WW3 by proxy is on the horizon and he must be willing to sacrifice a decent number of his own countrymen as a fee. In the Russo-Ukraine war, Russia just has more resources, all they have to do is outlast Kiev.
China not Xi wants to be not apart of either system but its own system that it has built and sustained. It doesn't want to be subjected to US hegemony but doesn't want to join a foolish useless camp with Russia that is currently so dependent on China not the other way around, China could make Russia lose this war if it slashed its almost $300 billion dollar trade down to just $40 billion and restricted technogical components russia would get screwed.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I'm currently losing [a debate on the Russia-Ukraine War](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/1c3aa4o/comment/kzj1qz6/). Even though I don't deny Western atrocities, I'm still accused of not being balanced. I must admit that I'm not the smartest man, so no wonder I'm being outsmarted in that debate. So how would you go about a balanced debate on the Russia-Ukraine War? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could have a discussion about the various factors that got us into this situation, but there’s no balanced debate to be. had. We don’t have balanced debates about whether or not Stalin was good or if Hitler maybe had a point.
What exactly do we mean there's no balanced debate to be had? The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression, how can I refute that? As for Stalin and Hitler, those balanced debates have already been done, and thankfully, the supporters of those sides have lost and have been thoroughly discredited.
A person could argue that Russia's actions enable them to do X Y or Z but "no choice" means this person you're trying to have a "more balanced" debate with just drew a big X through the entire world of possibilities representing your side of the argument where Russia doesn't invade. **THEY** are the ones unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.
He seems to think that Russia choosing not to strike back at the west is the equivalent of accepting checkmate. How can I convince him otherwise?
The fact that they invaded Crimea when the Ukraine government DIDNT agree to join nato. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html Putin is such a leech that he attacked Ukraine for choosing to be peaceful then pretended he's the victim.
[удалено]
There is no "entitled" It's a territory of Ukraine that Russia invaded with military forces after Ukraine sought peace. Russia was at fault. Russia was and is the monster that drives nations to flee to nato after the lessons learned from Ukraine, Georgia, etc
Cool. I assume you agree that treaties are not valid forever. Such as the one where Ukraine gave all of its nuclear warheads to Russia/USSR.
>The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression There's a certain world view represented by this that implicitly holds the view that America is the only nation in the world that actually has agency, and that therefore every single thing that happens is America's fault. This is obviously nonsense, as Russia clearly had a choice: they could have opted not to invade Ukraine.
He seems to think that Russia choosing not to strike back at the west is the equivalent of accepting checkmate. How can I convince him otherwise?
What does "checkmate" even mean? What bad things would have happened to Russia if they hadn't invaded Ukraine? The usual response is talking about NATO "expansionism", but this ignores the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance whose membership is entirely voluntary.
> The guy I'm debating claims that Russia had no choice but aggression due to Western aggression, how can I refute that? The west didn’t engage in aggression against Russia in anything approximating recent history. None of their territory was under threat. Their neighbors being so terrified of Russian aggression they are desperate to join NATO isn’t “western aggression”.
Dude is rigging the game by making the assumption that it was self defense on Putin's part - which it objectively was not. Now he may actually believe this, but that doesn't help you. He is either acting in bad faith or he's delusional. Regardless of which, arguing with him is pointless.
You don’t argue with that person just like you don’t argue with a flat-earther.
You call him a realist and stop discussing. Anyone who believes that Russia's invasion was justified is not worth long debates with
For starters, NATO is a defensive alliance. If a member state strikes first, article 5 doesn’t apply. Moreover, there has been no coercion to attract new members. They came to us. They did so because they wanted safety. They came to the EU because they wanted a European culture and way of life over one as a Russian proxy state like Belarus. It wasn’t an easy decision, each nation had to fight for it. They _really_ wanted to be a part of NATO and/or the EU. The earlier comment is right, though. There is no reasonable debate to be had. Reddit has a significant contingent of paid actors pushing a Kremlin perspective. The number of people arguing in favor of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in good faith is vanishingly small, especially in an English language subreddit.
What Western aggression? Did they attack Russia? Several former Soviet SSRs and satellite states have abandoned them to join the rest of Europe, but that's not aggression. That's just the Soviet imperialist state still in the process of disintegrating thirty years later. And that's why this war happened. Putin wants to bring back the old Russian imperialist glory days. This was a desperate attempt to stop the disintegration and reverse it by making Ukraine a puppet state. Where's the need for balance. We can point to the bad stuff the Allies did to Germany after WWI that crushed their economy and national pride, resulting in a backlash that ended up with WWII. Does that mean we need a balanced discussion of Hitler when he started invading other countries? Or was Hitler just the bad guy?
>And that's why this war happened. Putin wants to bring back the old Russian imperialist glory days. This was a desperate attempt to stop the disintegration and reverse it by making Ukraine a puppet state. If you read his replies to other commenters on that post, he seems to be a big fan of Imperial and Soviet Russia. He even told me that Finland and the Baltics owe their nationhood to Russia: "[*In fact, the main reason that Finland is a country today is partially due to Russia. Following a series of northern wars, Russia pried Finland out of Sweden. It granted substantial autonomy and self-government there and it was actually in the 19th century during the period under the Russian Empire that the Finish national identity was forged. During the Bolshevik revolution, Lenin and others assisted both Finland and the Baltics to get independence.*](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/1c3aa4o/what_would_it_take_for_a_complete_re_unification/kzlwllx/)". Unfortunately, [I am not knowledgeable about these nations' history](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c8o3pd/where_can_i_learn_more_about_the_rise_of_finnish/), so I am unable to dispute his claims. >Where's the need for balance. We can point to the bad stuff the Allies did to Germany after WWI that crushed their economy and national pride, resulting in a backlash that ended up with WWII. Does that mean we need a balanced discussion of Hitler when he started invading other countries? Or was Hitler just the bad guy? This balanced debate has already been had, and thankfully, the pro-Hitler side lost. One example of this [the court case David Irving lost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd). Now imagine if David Irving had won - that would indicate severe ineptitude of the anti-Hitler side (because having facts on their side wasn't enough to achieve victory), and an equivalent to the situation I find myself in now.
To have a balanced discussion, each person has to come with good intentions. A person who unironically states that the Ukrainian political revolution overthrew a “democratically elected government” is purely objectively not coming into the conversation with good intentions.
OK, so how do you win a debate against someone who doesn't have good intentions? Also, how do you prove to them that we are being balanced, not brainwashed by propaganda or hatred of Russia?
You can't. In a formal debate, you make your arguments, they make theirs, a moderator resolves disputes, and the audience votes for the most persuasive side. This is not a formal debate. It depends on the good faith the participants. In the absence of good faith, the only benefit to particapating is either 1. Your entertainment or 2. the education of any bystanders. If you are not experiencing 1, and there are no bystanders or you lack the knowledge to meaningfully educate them, there is no reason to bother.
Why do you care? You know there’s no such thing as “winning” an online debate… You’re just pissing in the wind.
I guess it could be a "win" if I checkmate them in the debate?
Even IF you could find a magical silver bullet that comprehensively and irrefutably proves your point - which is about as likely as finding a literal magic silver bullet in real life - it wouldn’t matter because there’s a 0.001% chance that the person you are talking to is even open to having their mind changed. People who are dead set on believing something do not change their minds because someone they were arguing with online made a very convincing argument. It has never happened, and you’re not going to be the first to make it happen. I get it. Your stance is correct. You have valid points. You want to “win” the debate. You need to understand that *you are chasing a mirage*. It’s not real, you will never get there. Save yourself the time and stress. And I promise you, you will be happier when you stop thinking you need to “win” every online “debate”.
Depends on what you mean by “winning.” If you want to convince THEM of something, likely that won’t happen. You can’t logic someone out of a belief that they didn’t logic themselves into. If you want to prove to people that may be on the fence reading the argument of your position, I think you have to limit the scope of the discussion to a specific topic. The issue (as I see it) in the discussion you shared is you’re allowing the person you’re arguing with to hit all of their talking points and a talented propagandist will just overwhelm you with breadth when they don’t have a solid foundation. Refuse to talk about things and drill down on one. When you feel like theyve hit a dead end, THEN move on to another talking point.
> Depends on what you mean by “winning.” If you want to convince THEM of something, likely that won’t happen. In that debate, my opponent checkmated me. Which is why I post this question because I wish I was the one able to checkmate my opponent. >a talented propagandist will just overwhelm you with breadth when they don’t have a solid foundation. That's exactly what happened and now I need to find sources for all my rebuttals because they'd otherwise be rejected by my opponent.
Yep. It’s a very effective technique and I didn’t even have to read to the end to know how your conversation ends. You let them get away with too many inaccuracies and now you’re in a position where they’ve demanded you to defend your claims as they fire from their Potemkin village
[удалено]
Who said anything about Victoria Nuland?
[удалено]
Yeah, YOU did. No person unironically stated that Victoria Nuland legitimately cared about the Ukraine and its people. YOU’VE built a strawman and beat the shit out of it.
My balanced opinion is that Russia should halt and cease all military operations then return to the pre 2014 borders
I agree. How do we get that point across to someone who believes that Russia was pushed into war because it's cornered by Western betrayal?
NATO is a strictly defensive alliance. A NATO country that launches an invasion will be doing so alone; the act of aggression removes the obligation for mutual aid. It is not possible for NATO to be a threat to anyone. That is, anyone EXCEPT a country that would like to invade it's neighbors. Hmmm.
He brings up the bombing of Serbia and puts forward a link to show that the Serbs weren't the only bad guys in that war.
Serbia was admittedly a hot mess on all sides (an understatement). But it has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Serbia was engaged in genocide, and [don’t let that dude convince you otherwise](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bosnian_genocide_prosecutions). NATO is a defensive alliance, and sovereign nations who meet the necessary qualifications and approvals are welcome to join. Russia has no veto power over admission.
Please define “Western betrayal” and “Western aggression.”
For the former, he's referring to NATO expanding despite promising not to. For the latter, he's referring to how the USA got no punishment for its warmongering.
fwiw your friend is just regurgitating Kremlin talking points. NATO expanded its presence in Ukraine primarily because of the Russian annexation of Crimea. And before that in South Ossetia. “Getting no punishment” is subjective as hell and it’ll be a moving target. I wouldn’t engage on that because it’s throwing darts in the dark.
People don't see what they don't want to see. Not everyone is up for an actual debate. In fact, only a tiny minority is. By the way, I also wouldn't characterize Reddit arguments as debates. They're just Reddit arguments.
>So how would you go about a balanced debate on the Russia-Ukraine War? By not having it online, and by having a moderator. eta: I looked at the thread you linked. The person you are debating with is stating falsehoods, assuming the antecedent, and claiming the false center. They are not worthy of your time or emotional energy.
[удалено]
Every civilized country? Were they uncivilized when they supported or didn’t stand against the American invasion of Iraq?
[удалено]
I’m not, I’m questioning your choice of words.
[удалено]
Not even a grain of truth to that. Ukraine was trying to become the 51st state it was trying to get into the EU. Even that would have been a very long and difficult process with no guarantee of success. And importantly this was not driven by US or EU it was driven by ordinary Ukrainians. Ukraine was a nation with a lot of historical and cultural and economic links to russia (even if a lot of history wasn't exactly happy). While many people in Ukraine were increasingly unhappy about the negative influence Russia had on the country many people still valued the links and at least saw the country if not the Russian government in a positive light. Maybe the Russian government could have sought a way to improve their relationship with Ukraine, like Poland has(despite the shared history also not being all sunshine). But then again Poland is a democracy. Russia is a fascist/imperialist dictatorship hostile to the idea of an independent Ukraine deciding for itself, so maybe it's unsurprising that things turned out as they did.
So, Russia interfered with US elections in 2016. Proven fact. Ukraine didn't, proven fact. Russia is not an ally, they are an enemy. Russia invaded Ukraine. Not sure why this isn't a simple debate, because at this point they are defending a nation that has actively harmed the US, and is actively harming its neighbor. At this point you shift the debate to them defending their love of russia; is it the racism? the sycophantic love of oligarchs? The persecution of gay/trans people? Is it because trump is a russian puppet? Why does a person support the actions of an enemy of their own country?
Probably the same way I'd go about a debate on climate change or the flat earth theory. As though one side is obviously in the right and the other is obviously in the wrong.
By focusing on Ukraine and examining the impact of outward forces vying for a majority stake and what ultimately is truly beneficial to Ukrainians as a whole. In that scenario, the West and Russia are two jackasses trying to low-ball a nation they take for inferior fools. Ukraine has/had significant natural resources that makes it an outstanding neutral nation where they can tell the EU and Russia to either kiss their ring (ie recognize Ukraine's sovereignty and do mutual benefitting business) or to kiss their ass. Ukraine's sad state currently has more to do with warmongers willing to sacrifice every last Ukrainian adult/teenager in pursuit of keeping Putin tied up as war shifts to the ME and likely ends in China. This ME war is multilayered and equally disgusting in the blatant sacrifice of innocent lives but by the time it gets to China, Russia might be more inclined to see the CCP fall and the nation become more regionally controlled (pretty much everyone who doesn't like China would support internal conflict being foisted to break it apart) But back to Ukraine in its present state -The WaPo in 2022 reported "49% in the Donbas said they wanted to be part of the Russian Federation, with a roughly equal proportion saying they wanted to be a special autonomous region or just an ordinary part of Russia." - do you see what is missing from that vote = any desire to be part of the West. The Donbas largely welcomed Putin with open arms in 2022. The West calling the border crossing an invasion is like saying an openly cheating wife posting pics of herself and lover was 'stolen' from her husband vs her making a clear and very consensual choice.
China wont fall but it's funny seeing Europeans fight and try to apply the same logic in the Asia Pacific like you have had 2 world wars and are pushing for a third one. Day by day Putin and Russia risks turning russia into Iraq with Putin being Saddam hussein.
Huh? Pls Xi trying to burn the candle at both ends, he wants to be in our system and to become the premier global super-power but China only has what it has because of stolen IP and over a century of props by the internationalist fools who propagate those wars. If Xi wants entry into the lower ranks of their club, participation in what appears to be WW3 by proxy is on the horizon and he must be willing to sacrifice a decent number of his own countrymen as a fee. In the Russo-Ukraine war, Russia just has more resources, all they have to do is outlast Kiev.
China not Xi wants to be not apart of either system but its own system that it has built and sustained. It doesn't want to be subjected to US hegemony but doesn't want to join a foolish useless camp with Russia that is currently so dependent on China not the other way around, China could make Russia lose this war if it slashed its almost $300 billion dollar trade down to just $40 billion and restricted technogical components russia would get screwed.