The point isn't to make dead people. The point is to be a target too dangerous for a potential enemy to want to attack. It's to keep people alive, because if an enemy were to look at you they'd see you're ready to fight them and decide not to; at least, that's the idea. Some enemies are too stupid or careless that they'd do it anyway.

Yeah we kinda need an actual ceasefire before enforcing any kinda of peacekeeping operation. Also this isn't two waring African nation, if a German peacekeeping force engages with the Russian army that should probably trigger a NATO response.

No, the whole point of this conversation, and my original comment, was to point out that Russia and NATO are not even in the same league as far as imperialistic tendencies. NATO has intervened to actually protect civilians. Russia just claims to be doing that while in reality murdering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands.

But not Palestine I bet. Thanks for showing us who you are, Germany.

Your point of this conversation is to make a moralistic argument of how evil Russia is. Moralistic arguments don't really work when you're trying to understand politics.

I agree that Russia is committing atrocities. You failed to give a reason why this is happening, other than "they are evil".

russians are running a bot network on very niche nerd site lemmy

If I had dollar for every time I read about how "Russian propaganda doesn't exist btw (also reality has a well known Russian propaganda bias)" or something along those lines, I'd be a rich man.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-disrupts-covert-russian-government-sponsored-foreign-malign-influence

If you're a bad actor, ofc you're gonna gravitate towards platforms without a centralised authority who could stop you from spreading your bullshit.

But you already know this. ;>

Yeah, ironic that Germany seems to be siding with fascists again

Russia claims that it's stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct.

It matters if one claim is true and the other isn't though, kinda important. Also, russia is stealing territory and have constantly given different bs reasons for what they are doing. NATO saw a genocide, halted it and left. These are not comparable at all.

Not if you're trying to understand why nation states are doing things and you're not incredibly naive.

Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?

Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan. So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

In the end, this is a hopeless endeavor, though. Nations go to war for strategic reasons, not moral ones. And people continuosly want to ignore the strategic interests of the west, claiming that it only wants to "help Ukraine", while claiming that Russia wants to return to Czardom. Both interpretations ignore the strategic motivations.

I don't think that going into detail would help anything. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that nations or their treaty organisations do anything because of a moral imperative.

Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan.

You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?

So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.