Instigator / Pro
14
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Topic
#4372
The Ukraine war is a travesty, instigated and propagated by the West,
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Slainte
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1702
rating
567
debates
68.17%
won
Description
Round 1: State your case
Round 2: Rebuttals, no new arguments.
The Forefit of any round is a loss.
This is not a pro-Russia or Pro Putin Troll debate. This is a serious look at how things got to where they are.
Round 1
Pro
#1
History
NATO and Russia
Reagan and Gorbachev had many discussions about the dissolution of the USSR specifically about NATO expansion,. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s said “not one inch eastward” about NATO expansion in a meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. Further supported by CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.".
1991, 1994, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2020, 2023. <-- All NATO expansion dates for the "safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means". 2008 Is particular as that was the Bucharest summit, where Georgia and Ukraine were invited to join NATO.
April 2008, Lavrov said "Russia will never allow Ukraine and Georgia to be pulled into NATO's orbit."
April 2008, Putin said "The appearance of new members in NATO cannot fail to influence security in Europe, and this influence will be negative."
April 2008, Defense Minister Serdyukov said "The alliance's eastward expansion . . . could lead to the appearance of new dividing lines in Europe and the possibility of new conflicts."
April 2008, Russian Foreign Ministry said "NATO's enlargement is an outright provocation aimed at drawing new dividing lines in Europe."
April 2008, Putin warned NATO's expansion could provoke a response from Russia, saying that "no one should expect us to calmly watch as people are driven into our territory or the territory of our neighbors, or while infrastructure of military blocs approaches our borders."
C1: NATO has been provocative to Russia from the beginning of the USSR fall. This has been seen as a threat, very much like the US saw a threat of the USSR putting missiles in Cuba.
Ukraine Border
The border was established in 1991 as the same administrative border during the USSR's rule. However for 100's of years, the Donbas was always Russian and Russian speaking, with 2 Russian heads of state being born in the Donbas area. Crimea was always a point of contention. Crimea had been part of Russia until 1954, when it was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This is the historical context of why there is such a large Russian population there.In 1994 the Budapest Agreement was signed, which states, inter alia "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine." Sevastopol and the Black Fleet dispute was resolved in 1997, with Ukraine granting a lease to Russia until 2042.
2003, a dispute over Tuzla Island, resolved by a co-sharing agreement in 2004
in Feb 2014, a referendum was held in Crimea, and the Donbas. Russia acknowledged the Crimea, but did not fully support Donbas.
September 2014, the Minsk Accord was signed, requiring Ukraine to grant autonomous referendums to the Donbas.
Ukraine Elections:
2004 - 2005. The Orange wave. This was a clear battled between the old East and the West. Yanukovych vs Yushchenko. While the pro east had won, and that win sustained a recount, a no confidence vote in 2005 saw Yushchenko win. The West had over 2500 "observers". EU, US,OSCE, Canada to name a few. Significant reports of pro European efforts in the election were documented, which further exacerbated the internal East vs West narrative.
2010, the East wins, and Yanukovych is elected again. and the West "accepted" the vote as legitimate. This shifted to a Pro-Russia mentality. This also took the willingness for a NATO membership off the table.
In 2013, Putin offers a $15BN loan to Ukraine, and lower gas prices, if Yanukovych does not sign the EU Cooperation Agreement. Yanukovych agrees, and then the shit hits the fan.
2014 the Euromaidan Revolution, (literally the name of the revolution. ). The EU then brokers a deal for the resignation of Yanukovych. Poroshenko wins a new election. Nathalie Jeresko, a Chicago born, US Diplomat, accepts Ukraine citizenship, to be the Finance Minister. Yes a former State Department diplomat is hand picked and put in as Finance Minister. She resigns in 2016, but not before getting rich off the backs of US taxpayer investments.
2019, Zelensky is elected, with significant support from the West, as there was no pro East candidate of worthiness, and Zelensky appealed to the younger pro EU population.
C2: There is significant West and US involvement in the elections, and within the government of Ukraine, as an influence and control strategy, that Putin sees as a risk.
The Donbas
We can see that the build up of tensions between pro East and West interests. There is a very good video that shows the source of the violence in 2014. It is over 50 minutes long, however worth the watch for anyone interested. It is here. It shows how the extreme, neo-nazi Azov Battalion came to be. As calls for the referendum, that was agreed to in the Minsk accord, went ignored, Donbas separatists got restless. The Azov Battalion took fatal, and aggressive action, in brutal ways. To show how bad they are, In 2018, US Congress tried to ban any US money from going to the Azov's. In 2019, 40 Democratic members of Congress called the Azov group a terrorist group. In 2019, the Azov Battalion were rolled into the regular Ukraine forces. Funding for the Donbas actions was provided by the US and the EU. The West literally paid for the attacks.
Here are examples, from 2014 to 2021 on Putin expressing concerns about the Azov, their role in the Donbas. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021
Here are examples from the same period, on Putin expressing dismay about Ukraines failure to honour the Mink Agreement.2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 2021
And here are examples from the same period, on Putin warning that he reserves the right to get involved to protect Russian speakers. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021
C3: Ukraines use of West funded paramilitary neo-nazi forces against Russian separatists, was seen as very provocative, and Putin was very vocal about it.
C4: The Mink Agreement was never implemented as promised. The purpose of the agreement was to prevent hostilities, and Putin from taking unilateral action under a Special Military Operation to protect Russian speakers. Putin was very critical of this failure of the Ukraine and the West for not implementing it.
C5: Any claim that Putins actions on Ukraine are unprovoked, are 100% erroneous. We see for 7+ years continued aggression, Putin warning over and over he will get involved. This cannot be countered.
The West
In 2014, this 22 second clip, by EU Member Nigel Farage (UK) warns of the NATO and EU provocation in Ukraine.
Merkel admits that the Minsk Agreements were never intended to be implemented, and just for Ukraine to buy time for a war with Russia. Here.
Hollande also reiterated the benefit of not implementing Minsk. Great 2 minute video here
In May of 2022, a Peace deal had been reached between Ukraine and Russia, brokered by Turkey. Biden instructed Johnson to go to Ukraine and convince Zelensky not to sign a deal. Here. The deal was then scrapped, and thereafter we saw Zelensky with hat in hand running around the world looking for weapons and money to fight a war, he actually wanted to stop.
C6: The behaviour of the west, manipulating the Minsk Agreement, and interfering with the peace affairs of Ukraine, clearly demonstrate that the West are using the Ukraine Russia conflict as a proxy war.
Conclusion
I apologize for the unorthodox way I have structured this argument. I knew sources would be the most important here. We can see that through my 6 Contentions, there is a definitive pattern of the West interfering, and supporting Ukraine, that Putin had tried to resolve peacefully, and that Putin warned and warned that he was concerned, and may take action.
Through the hundreds of thousands killed and injured, this travesty in Ukraine, is the but for cause of the West.
Thank you.
Con
#2
So, Pro has actually proven absolutely nothing but I find it convenient to rebuke Pro's case as Pro has basically given a total inversion of events which support my case.
When Pro accuses NATO of expanding, Pro frames it as if that's a bad and rude thing to Russia. As if Putin's tyrannical leadership of Russia itself, which has involved chemical attacks and torture to throttle his opposition and any kind of defectors, is the epitome of what to found one's worldview on.
Putin has a fucking screw loose. He told NATO and the world he was positioning his military for defense-only and then attacked Ukraine. He didn't have to gaslight and lie and tell that it was defense-only unless he was planning the attack all along, which was 100% unprovoked.
He believes Ukraine is under a Nazi regime and that he has to completely colonise it to 'save it' this is the 'special military operation' he tells his people he is doing. He wouldn't need to put people in prison in Russia for even calling it a 'war' if he was on the right side of this war. He does not tell his people that he is fighting NATO, he says he is fighting Nazis and that NATO is defending Nazism.
All Pro has done is twist things around so that NATO, a military defense pact, is gaslit to think that wanting to extend itself is somehow offensive and obnoxious to Russia. It is the total other way around, you cannot blackmail Ukraine to side with Russia if it consents to want to join NATO. All Putin did was prove that had Ukraine been in NATO, a genocide of Ukranians (mainly men) and complete obliteration of the livelihood and safety of residing in Ukraine wouldn't have occurred.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Per the rules set forth in the description, Round 2 is for rebuttals, and no new arguments. Arguments should be sourced at the very least. Alas Con has not provided any sources to their position.
I shall address Con's statements, and summarise.
When Pro accuses NATO of expanding,
I did not accuse NATO of expanding, I proved they expanded.
Pro frames it as if that's a bad and rude thing to Russia.
I never said rude. I said it was provocative, and I proved the West knew it was provocative. I showed how NATO expansion was done in bad faith.
Con goes on to say:
As if Putin's tyrannical leadership of Russia itself, which has involved chemical attacks and torture to throttle his opposition and any kind of defectors, is the epitome of what to found one's worldview on.
I have no doubt whatsoever there could be merit in that statement. Unfortunately, unsourced, or unreferenced statements are not persuasive and do not win debates. I will also point out, that NATO expanded well before Putin was at the helm, and lets not talk about torture from the mighty altruistic chair of the West.
Putin has a fucking screw loose. He told NATO and the world he was positioning his military for defense-only and then attacked Ukraine. He didn't have to gaslight and lie and tell that it was defense-only unless he was planning the attack all along, which was 100% unprovoked.
At the risk of being unprofessional, Con's statement above is nearly laughable. I demonstrated the provocation. I demonstrated quotes of Putin warning about expansion. Warning about protecting the Russian speakers, warning about the use of neo-nazi paramilitary forces, etc. I provided sources, 35 different sources, to carefully construct the total picture. Con has provided no source that shows the SMO was unprovoked.
He believes Ukraine is under a Nazi regime and that he has to completely colonise it to 'save it' this is the 'special military operation' he tells his people he is doing. He wouldn't need to put people in prison in Russia for even calling it a 'war' if he was on the right side of this war. He does not tell his people that he is fighting NATO, he says he is fighting Nazis and that NATO is defending Nazism.
Again Con is making a wide statement, with no evidence or support. The comments are speculative, and unsubstantiated. Putin negotiated the Minks agreement, and the west refused to implement it, despite agreeing to them. Putin negotiated a peace treaty via Turkey, and the West interfered with that. That conduct is not commensurate with someone who wants to "colonize" and "save" the Ukraine. I have been unable to find any reference online where Putin or Lavrov say that Russia needs to colonize the Ukraine. Con has not provided a source.
However even if that was the case, I established that there are in fact neo-nazi military elements, and they are targeting the Russian speaking Donbas region. That is a provocation, and not the only one.
Con finally states that if Ukraine was a member of NATO, that a "genocide", of Ukrainian men would not have occurred. Again this is without substance, or even fact. I demonstrated above how Merkel explained that the Minsk agreement was a ploy. In the source, it clearly states, that Merkel was of the opinion that NATO was too weak in 2014 to support Ukraine like they do today, and they needed time to build up their position. There is no evidence that Russia are trying to ethnically cleanse Ukraine.
What is Con Saying?
I am a little confused as to what Con is arguing. It appears as if Con is saying:
a) NATO can expand, at will, despite their geopolitical assertions they would not
b) There should be no geopolitical consequences for expansion
c) Putin has a screw loose, and wants to "colonise" Ukraine to "save it" from nazi's
d) Nothing that the West has done could be considered provocation
e) Everything the West did is great, because.... well Putin has a screw loose.
Everything Con has said falls under an Appeal to Emotion debating technique. Let's not fall for it. Lets look at facts, or in Con's case, the lack thereof.
Conclusion:
I came at this debate, with extensive research, and the willingness to look at the totality of the situation. As I stated, this is not a Pro Putin agenda. He is a fucking warmonger, just like Zelensky, and Biden, and Johnson, and Merkel, and Hollande, and Obama, and Bush...... That being said, this war would be over if the West did not interfere. It would not have happened, if Ukraine had followed through with their commitments with the Minsk agreement, and through the admission of the West, there was never an intent to follow through.
I have made arguments, and provided extensive sources to back them up. Con has accused me of twisting, and misrepresenting, when in fact it is Con who is making uncorroborated statements. It appears as if Con is stuck in a cognitive dissonance trap, and refuses to accept that the West can actually do wrong.
A Vote for Pro, is not a vote for Putin. It is a Vote for accountability, and reality.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I have to admit that I'm heavily biased toward CON here, and I found myself agreeing with almost everything RM said so it pains me to vote against him. That being said, an argument is not just a series of true statements. Slainte did a much better job justifying what he said, mostly because he showed up for both rounds of the debate. PRO argues that NATO's actions were provocative to Russia (according to the standards Putin set), hence they instigated the war. RM did not dispute this and mainly attacks Putin for other things, without defending the actions of NATO as justified. CON did not have Sources, so that point goes to PRO as well.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeit 50% of the debate = loss
Since Con didnt explain why NATO expansion was a good action when you explained that such action leads to war, the conclusion that we have is that NATO expansion is what caused the war in Ukraine.
Con went off topic instead of trying to disprove that NATO action led to war.
I must first say that my opinion is probably different from the opinion of the majority of the voters here. Therefore, dont take my opinion as more important than theirs.
Your strongest arguments that I find in round 1 is:
"April 2008, Putin said "The appearance of new members in NATO cannot fail to influence security in Europe, and this influence will be negative."
"April 2008, Defense Minister Serdyukov said "The alliance's eastward expansion . . . could lead to the appearance of new dividing lines in Europe and the possibility of new conflicts.""
"2019, Zelensky is elected, with significant support from the West, as there was no pro East candidate of worthiness, and Zelensky appealed to the younger pro EU population."
"2008 Is particular as that was the Bucharest summit, where Georgia and Ukraine were invited to join NATO."
From these arguments, it is obvious that both Ukraine and the West knew that the consequence of the expansion would be war in Ukraine, as it was said to them multiple times. They chose expansion, therefore causing war. This is in itself enough to prove the topic, in my view.
Thank you for the vote. Most importantly, thank you for highlighting your bias. That is a very difficult thing for people. Your vote is about the quality of the debate and not the subject. Thank you for that. Feel free to invite me to discuss the issue at a later time... I have already shown my cards :). We appear to disagree on a few things, and I like that. Good frank open conversations. Be well and thank you.
Thank you for the vote. Would you mind giving me your thoughts, even very thinly of my arguments? This was not about winning. This was about articulating a different perspective, and seeing how well it holds up to intelligent scrutiny. I understand if you are jammed for time. Thanks
"By the west"
Not sure if Russia is west enough to be considered West... I mean, their easternmost part is more eastern than Japan and China.