Maimai-Anwalt. Ein Beruf mit Zukunftsperspektive? Erfahren Sie mehr in folgendem Artikel...

And supposedly the people of those regions voted to leave Ukraine, right?

Supposedly. One side says it were fair elections the other doubts that. So, who is right? The side that had soldiers at the voting booths, oppresses the people there, deports and kills the people living there, or the one to which the regions belong that wants to live in peace?

Best we can do is resolve it as peacefully as possible. I see democracy as the same as simulated war: one side has 20,000 men, one has 15,000, let’s just assume the bigger army will win and skip the war altogether.

1. The war shouldn't have broken out. Why? Budapest Memorandum. Russia was supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So Russia doesn't need to adhere to treaties because they have more soldiers?
2. If we're talking about active soldiers, how about North Korea annexes just about everyone? They have about 7 million soldiers (soldiers, reservists and paramilitaries). So they can just say that everyone should bow to their will? So they can just say "We take the United States"? [1]

Since I made these points over and over again that the votings for independence are not fair and equal, that Russia is violating international law, and they are attacking an independent country, I will stop here since we're going round in circles.

Ich wollte nur kurz einhaken und sagen, dass Du nicht seltsam bist, nur weil Du Lanz' Format magst. Es gibt noch sehr viele andere dort draußen, die es mögen, sonst würde es sich nicht so lange halten. Seltsam bist Du also deshalb nicht. :)

Crimea was in the USSR, no?

Yes, you're right. I thought Ukraine was kinda independent since they had a seat in the UN, but I was wrong. So it's been roughly 30 years, yes.

Like, Russia really wants Crimea, they will most likely win the war eventually, why not let them have it if it means ending the war?

And that is exactly what Gian and I are refering to. In the 1930s it was "If Germany gets Austria, it would be peace in our time." "If Germany gets Sudetenland, it would be peace in our time." But Hitler was never satisfied.

If they were to then try to take more land, that’s when we put our foot down.

And here lies the problem. De facto they already had Crimea. There is no way around that they occupied it and no one lifted a finger. Now they want the Donbass Region with all the iron and coal. Luhansk and Donetsk.
So "If Russia gets Crimea, there will be peace in our time." doesn't ring quite so good now. "If Russia gets Donbass, there will be peace in our time" is the exact same mistake that was made 90 years ago. And those mistakes cost many lives.

It’s really just America that cares about Russia not getting stronger, the rest of the world should want all of Russia, China, and America to be roughly equal.

No. The European Union also cares about Russia getting stronger. Well I for myself don't want an authoritarian governmant to just invade neighbours because they feel like it. The European Union tried to integrate Russia by trading with them, but we see that that didn't quite get the result that was hoped for.
I do get, what you're trying to say that China, Russia and the USA should be roughly equal, but the EU is missing and to be honest, two Superpowers being authoritarian is more frightening than anything else.

So why is it acceptable for America to stage coups, rig elections, and assassinate leaders covertly

It is not, but this is not the topic of our discussion. It is Russia and what they are doing. That the USA have their own problems is true, but not the topic.

The Russia style doesn’t directly attack civilians, unlike the US method.

I think you missed most of the news regarding the war in Ukraine. The Russian Army is targeting the infrastructure and civilians. So many rockets hit civilian houses in Kyiv and other cities. Schools, hospitals, you name it. Everything is fair game for the russian Artillery. Some observer even muse about that the Russian Army is targeting civilians deliberately as a tactic of terror to instill a war weariness and a longing for peace out of self preservation.

Control of the black sea is universally useful. Imagine if Russia could threaten a sea invasion of Israel if they keep up the genocide.

If they had control over the Black Sea they still couldn't threaten a sea invasion of Israel. You would have to have control over the Mediterranian.
But let's assume they had control over the Black Sea. Why would they try to stop Israel? At the moment the war in the Gaza Strip is not something they would like to be involved in since it is a distraction for the world and it is a good way to siphon off military goods from the USA.

Alaska was never meaningfully Russian, the natives and the cities built there have nothing to do with russia. Not so for Crimea.

Alaska would be a perfect starting point for conquering Canada and the USA, control of the Bering Sea, and the ressources hidden beneath the surface. But that's besides the point.
Crimea hadn't been part of the Soviet Union since 1954. Since then it's been part of Ukraine. So the question would be more along the lines: how long would it take for you to something not be a part of another country?
To illustrate my argument: Europe is a continent filled with a history of big empires that rose and fall. So if you go about 150 years into the past, middle europe was dominated by Germany (the Kaiserreich). Would you say that Germany has any claim to the now polish provinces that were german 80 years ago (Danzig, Pommern, Königsberg et. al.)? If we go further into the past, we have Sweden for most of the Baltic Sea. France would also be a strong contender looking at what Napoleon subjugated.
And so on and so on. You can't just go into the past and pick a date. The ramifications are too complex.

It's a tactic of fear. Invoke fear in civilians and you can get them to do what you need them to do. If there are soldiers with weapons in front of a voting place who quite clearly belongs to a specific party without so much as openly stating it, then people are going to vote for that party out of fear. That is what I called selfpreservation. They don't want to die.
If by any chance you wouldn't be swayed by such blatant show of force then I admire you. The majority of people are swayed. Especially when there are literally truckloads of soldiers all about the coutryside. And as you said: voting with the more powerful state. At that moment the Russians had their force in Crimea and the people chose selfpreservation. Was it the right choice? For Ukraine? No. For Russia? Yes, of course. That's why they showed force.

I don’t think they should invade those places, no.

Then why do you follow that logic with Crimea but not the baltics?

Having control of the northern black sea is obviously important.

Ah, now I understand. "We need a harbour that's ice free the whole year around." There are some holes in that logic:
a) Russia had/has a lease on the Sevastopol Navy Yard. That's where the Black Sea Fleet was/is anchored. b) Russia has Novorossiysk, a harbour that is ice free all year around and is one of their biggest - if not the biggest - trade harbours. They even have a Navy Yard there.
So why do they need Crimea? To get their stuff from Rostov at Don all the way to the Dardanelles? They already could do that since they had the other half of the strait of Kertch.
And the other question: Why do they need the control of the northern black sea?

Russia is obviously not invading anywhere else in the foreseeable future, let’s move past that.

Why would you think that? Spokespersons of the Kremlin are rattling their sabres for Svalsbard and they are painting themselves as an oppressed minority. Does that sound familiar? Yes, since Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk were the same.
Svalbard is protected by a treaty, but Ukraine also had a treaty with Russia about territorial integrity.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that were carved out of Georgia, an independent nation.
Transnistria is a region of Moldova, also an independent nation. Transnistria has requested the annexation into Russia. So the question is, do you recognize Transnistria as a sovereign state or is it a part of Moldova? If it is a part of Moldova it would be an invasion of Russia. Although since they already have troops there it is an ongoing occupation.

Since Russia is still engaged in occupation and invasion and is still rattling their sabres, can we really move past the threat of invasion?
The thing is, we don't know what they are planning. We don't know what they are aiming for. But we see that there are tactics in play they use quite often. For instance the tactic of propping up people that want their own state (see Luhansk, Donetsk). Then going in to help them.
Then there is the tactic of subtle influencing. The problem with this is that there are just clues but no real evidence. So it is really difficult to prove that Russia is behind such things like the Brexit for instance. But there is meddling with the elections of the United States.

But so much text for just saying that Russia might as well already have started the Third World War and all machinations are going to culminate in it. Does Putin want to do that? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows except him and perhaps a handfull of his confidants. So we as ordinary people will never truly know. The parallels to Hitler and the Second World War are there, some tactics stayed the same (fear, forceful annexation), tactics changed (propping up partisan governments). It's all a question of time, but I'm not confident enough to say that Russia won't be annexing anything else or will stop once Luhansk, Crimea, and Donetzk are independent and can be integrated into Russia. There are too many clues to the contrary.

So, if I understand you correctly, Russia should also invade Latvia and Lithuania? By your logic it would be highly important to Russia since they would get a land bridge to Kaliningrad and they were historically part of the USSR.

The analogy to Anschluss Österreichs and Crimea is quite apt. The votings were manipulated - just look at the soldiers outside of voting stations on Crimea, who in their right mind wouldn't want to vote for selfpreservation?
The second analogy would be Sudetenland and Donetsk and Luhansk is as apt with the only distinction that there is a war now going on. The two republics that are only recognized by Russia and their "Motherland". While Hitler didn't have a Sudeten-Republik he wanted to get them back into the fold. So it is also quite apt.

Does Russia have parallels to Germany 1930s? Yes. And no. Why not? Time moved on, tactics evolved (just look at the two republics). Why yes? Some tactics stayed the same. And greed.

Wieso sieht das so aus, als ob das linke Mädchen da in Handschellen sitzt? Übt sie schon einmal?

Ich stimme Dir zu, dass es nicht alles sein sollte. Doch andere Dinge - wie zum Beispiel auf eine Demo zu gehen - können eine größere Einstiegshürde sein als ein Meme zu machen und irgendwo zu posten.

Das Argument, dass es ausschließlich auf die Follower geht. Hm... das kann ich so nicht entkräften. Vielleicht ist es nur ein Eindruck. Doch erlaube mir, es auch auf eine Demo zum Beispiel anzuwenden. Die Demo ist genauso mehr etwas, wo der überzeugte AfD-Wähler, der seine Chance sieht, sich nicht von beeindrucken lassen wird. Da würde nur eine Diskussion helfen. Doch das kann nicht jeder. Genausowenig wie jeder auf eine Demo gehen kann. Deshalb muss jeder etwas finden, mit dem er arbeiten kann. Sicher ist der Gedanke: "Ich habe ein Meme gegen die AfD gemacht, ich habe die Welt gerettet" nicht gerade der Richtige, aber zeigt, wohin es gehen sollte. Frei nach dem Motto: Irgendwo muss man halt anfangen.

Eine Demo kann Leuten, die sich unsicher sind, ob es einen Rechtsruck gibt oder nur noch AfD-Wähler gibt, helfen, dass sie sehen, dass sie nicht allein sind. Genau das Gleiche kann ein Meme auch. Wie auch in den Sozialen Medien ist es genauso möglich, dass über eine Demo gesprochen wird oder nicht - so kann ein Meme angezeigt werden oder nicht. Wenn die ARD über fünf Demos in Großstädten berichtet, kann das also genauso gut abgetan werden als Systemmedien.

Wie man es dreht und wendet, es ist schwierig. Ich wollte Tiptopit auch nur einen Vorschlag unterbreiten, wie und wo man anfangen könnte, wenn man sich ohnmächtig fühlt und trotzdem etwas machen möchte.

Du muss nicht unbedingt handgreiflich werden oder einer Partei beitreten, um Dich politisch zu engagieren. Eine Möglichkeit wäre z.B. sich der AfD auf Instagram, YouTube und/oder TikTok "zu stellen". Laut Heute-Show (ja, ich weiß, mag vielleicht nicht unbedingt eine seriös wirkende Quelle sein) hat die AfD bei YouTube mehr als doppelt so viele Follower als alle anderen Parteien zusammen. Man kann (und sollte vielleicht auch) dort für jede ihrer Behauptungen ein Meme machen, mit dem sie entlarvt werden, weil die anderen Parteien fast alle eher verknöchert sind und es selbst nicht schaffen.