Moonbox

Yes, that was their unambiguous foreign policy. They were safe and comfy as long as the continent didn't unite under a single hegemon and threaten their naval supremacy. They'd likely have supported Napoleon if the Prussians had been rampaging across the continent, as they had supported the French in numerous other campaigns against the Spanish, the Dutch, the Germans, the Russians etc. Yes yes, and Napoleon reinstated slavery in the French colonies, marched 600,000 soldiers 3000km to Moscow and who subsequently almost all starved to death, and presided over a series of wars that killed ~5 million people. Let's not pretend that any of these guys look good by today's moral standards.

Can't really say, but we can safely assume that whatever links you could provide that you think confirm Moscow's narrative don't actually do so. We can agree that Boris Johnson went to Ukraine, and then Ukraine wasn't interested in any potential peace deal that might have been on the table. Beyond that you're just filling in the blanks the way the clownweb is encouraging you to.

Stabile state is one thing, marching from Paris to Moscow is something altogether different. The fact that the Republic survived and was revived following his exile proves that it wasn't nearly as fragile some folks assume. Crediting Napoleon with civil law systems is a big stretch too. It was released as the "Civil Code of the French" after numerous attempts and commissions, and was copied and modeled after 7th century Roman codes. That Napoleon encouraged and pushed it along is something you can perhaps give him credit for, but this, again, is likely something that would have happened even without him (albeit maybe slower) like it did in Germany before him, or the Byzantines etc before them. Perhaps, but then as many people died as a result of Napoleon's march on Moscow as did in the Irish potato famine. At least the latter was a result of blight rather than megalomania.

The French revolution changed France for the better. Many of the things you're crediting to him were the natural inclinations of an anti-monarchy/aristocracy revolution (like the insistence on meritocracy). Hilariously, he made his brother the Spanish King after conquering it, so the hypocrisy and authoritarianism of his regime was apparent for anyone who didn't believe in his legend. That he modelled himself on the legacy of Rome (with all its warts) is hard to deny. He took a shaky Republic, built up populist support and then used that to grab absolute power. He even used golden eagles (like the old Roman Legions) as military standards for his regiments. H He, just like Caesar, was a brilliant and innovative general, but that's where I would say his legacy's strong points begin and end. Tolstoy wrote about this in War and Peace. This was the birth of Nationalism and the large-scale continent-spanning wars it later brought.

As Aristides said, it was Russia throwing conscripts and convicts into the meatgrinder in Bakhmut. It's Russia throwing missiles and Iranian garbage tech into civilian infrastructure. It was Russia who (almost certainly) destroyed the dam. The Russians were driven away from Kiev after being thrashed and embarrassed. The only people that believe that Putin's claims of peace talks were genuine are the same ones that are slurping the Kremlin's propaganda.

This is a nothing story. It’s partisan MPs throwing mud at each other.

That probably had more to do with the fact that he spent most of his lifetime fighting wars of conquest. The case for Boney and the things he stood for can be neatly summarized by the fact that he installed his brother as the King of Spain.

Who are we making think anything? Canada didn't invade Ukraine, did it?

It’s interesting that you can be so articulate on Putin, but then in almost the same breath draw parallels with talking head Trudeau. Maybe when opponents starting getting gunned down on Ottawa’s streets, fall out of balconies or get poisoned with radioactive or nerve agents we could talk about that.

Did they take Kiev? No. Did they take Kharkiv? No. Did they lose Kherson city? Yes. Did they declare the annexation of both Kherson and Zaporizha Oblasts, despite not controlling large parts of the provinces? Yes. Russia's changing goalposts in response to their setbacks is the only way you frame this as a winning. If you don't want Ukraine to be destroyed, maybe focus on the dictator who's destroying it? "I want peace (by giving a murderous tyrant everything he wants)" is nonsensical.

Because they win and get everything they want if everyone stands aside. It's rewarding aggression/bullying/imperialism any way you want to call it. When you say this: You're not really being truthful. "They won't because they don't have to" is junk logic because we can turn it right back around. Ukraine doesn't have to stop resisting because they don't have to. We don't have to stop supporting them because we don't have to. Coool.

If you haven't chosen a side, why is ALL (as in fully 100%) of your criticism for the conflict on Ukraine, Zelensky, NATO etc? Why is not a single breath spent criticizing Putin, who ordered the invasion? Why do you parrot all of his talking points, even the ones that make absolutely no sense? That's a question for which you have no answer.

Maybe it doesn't, maybe it won't, or maybe it will. We've yet to see what happens over the summer. Digging trenches and converting to WW1 style static warfare on a limited front was, a good decision. Anyways, Nationalist, here is your quote (not deleted). Provide the "context" for us, please.

Okay, let's accept that it is true. Why don't you try providing the context that somehow doesn't allow the quote to cut through your LARPing as impartial? Even last Fall, when it was still there, you just stammered "misquote misquote misquote" but never actually explained.

Gosh isn't that convenient? The quote that you claim was taken out of context magically disappears, when only the poster or the forum owner can remove it. Of all the posts to vanish out of thin air, that's the one that goes. So honorable...?

Then why did you delete your quote? You can only bullshit and pretend you were misquoted because you removed the evidence. That's so "honorable". ?

It's great to see the Trumpy election denier standing up for him. Birds of a feather, as they say. ?

It was a direct quote and there was no context that explains it. The fact that you deleted the post tell us everything we need to know about that. ? The guy parroting the propaganda of a murderous dictator, cheering for the suffering and destruction of Ukrainians and for the freezing of Europeans in their home last winter...he's the one talking about "honor". ??

Posting a lot is one thing. Posting 50+ times a day is well past no-life territory and completely absurd, especially when most of it is devoted to buffoonishly carrying on like you were here (before I even joined the thread). ?

It was a direct quote, and you've never been able/willing to offer any context or clarification to the statement. That everything else you say echoes what little Vlad and Russia Today say (or Tucker Carlson) paints your picture clearly - that you're Rootin' for Putin.

I understand those people exist, but it's definitely not you.

I post "regularly", but not 50+ times a day. ? You keep saying I'm "following you", but as I've pointed out before, you can't seem to help quoting me in threads where I've not even addressed you. That you're literally the biggest no-life troll this forum has ever seen, and that you stink it up all day, every day just means that you're impossible to avoid. Regardless, your generous and self-congratulating perception of what goes on in your debates, and how upset you figure you're making your opponents, is hardly something you'll convince them of by insisting and repeating it to them. ?

and yet sometimes I write long posts myself. What I don't do, however, is write paragraphs and paragraphs of insecure posturing, trying to convince my debate opponents that I am actually defeating them and that they are very upset about it. ?

Great logic. On the same token, Ukraine isn't going to give up their sovereignty, and the West (and particularly Europe) isn't going to stop supporting them, and they have far, far more resources at their disposal. Statistics and numbers don't do it for me, but how's that Putin poster on your ceiling doing for you? What a dreamboat!

The Russians could leave Ukraine, and then there'd be no more war, but you don't want them to leave. You're here with your pom-poms rootin' Putin, saying everything you possibly can to support him but too cowardly to even admit where you stand. Chalk another bozo research job up for Nationalist though: March 2022 data is the best source for casualties in June 2023! ?