Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

  • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

    West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

    Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

    • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Angry libs on lemmy downplay CNN poll showing majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine

      • JuryNullification [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Heckin wholesome democracy, ignoring the will of the people to keep doing what you wanted anyway, after doing that for decades in Afghanistan and Iraq

      • timespace@lemmy.ninja
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine not helping your Allies when they’ve been invaded, unprovoked, and are fighting for everything.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, we tend to take US military help to Europe for granted in retrospect. Both FDR and Churchill fought hard battles at home to ensure the opposition to Nazi Germany, and at the time it is far from obvious that they would succeed. There’s also an element of luck to the fact that we had FDR and Churchill at the helm of these countries in these years - weaker leaders would have crumbled like France.

          US military involvement in the postwar era has been a fucking mess, but we (Europeans) are eternally grateful for this - far from obvious - determination to help your allies when they’re being invaded.

          Post script since there’s a bunch of Russian shills in this thread: We’re grateful for the efforts of the Red Army as well. The fact that Stalin was happy to cooperate with Hitler all the way until the invasion of the Soviet Union, combined with a common distaste for Soviet postwar policies in many liberated areas, however makes our appreciation of the Soviet political leadership at the time a bit more strained. Soviet military tactics were also inefficient and caused unnecessary suffering and losses within the Red Army - history does repeat itself.

      • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good thing we listened to a few things Alexis Tocqueville had to say and we don’t simply follow majority opinion on everything, because sometimes the majority is wrong.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      At a 2008 summit, NATO stated that it would attempt to expand to include Georgia and Ukraine, despite Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them. Georgia was immediately invaded by Russia in response. Imo this makes it clear that NATO membership for either of those countries was so unacceptable that Russia would rather invade.

      If we assume that Russia (and Putin in particular) is acting violently and irrationally like a wild animal, why did NATO continue to agitate Russia when the only possible outcome would be violence? Surely a neutral or even Russia-aligned Ukraine would be preferable to a war-torn Ukraine? This is proof that the US and NATO don’t care about the average person actually living in Ukraine, and indeed don’t care about the Ukrainian state beyond it being a useful (and profitable) proxy against a geo-political rival.

      To be clear, I’m not excusing Russia here, but geo-politics aren’t about what’s “fair” or “right”, and if they were, the US would be a global pariah.

      • SeborrheicDermatitis [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        edit: sorry this is really long.

        I think it’s clear that NATO support for Ukraine is not altruistic (it is simply not how international politics functions) but the Ukrainian people as such certainly do, in my eyes, have an ethical right to self-defence. If I were Ukrainian, I would want NATO weapons because they give me a better chance of fighting off the invader. After all, it’s not like the 2022 invasion was the first bit of tension between Ukraine and Russia post-independence, it makes sense to try and form a counterbalancing alliance with the ‘far’ imperial power to counter the ‘close’ one, it’s a common thing to do. e.g., Mali allying with Russia to counter French influence, Armenia allying with Russia to counter Turkish-Azeri aggression, and so on and so forth.

        I think what I find disagreeble about peoples’ attitudes on here is their attitude towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. Yes, ok, I also hate the far-right elements in the Ukrainian military and don’t care at all that they got smashed in Mariupol, but I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians (there is clear evidence that outside of Crimea even Russian-speaking Ukrainians almost entirely oppose the invasion). Likewise

        Yes, NATO does not care about Ukrainians, but an invasion was not the ‘logical’ response from Russia, and as per existing evidence was based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground in Ukraine from the Russian leadership which has become increasingly isolated and personalist (around Putin) in the past two decades but especially since COVID. There were a vast number of less escalatory and mutually destructive potential paths for the Russian leadership to have taken. After all, this war has gone terribly for Russia compared to their initial aims. Putin claimed (wrongly) that Ukrainian national identity was a Bolshevik creation with no real support, yet now a fervent Ukrainian national identity exists now more than ever before in both the east and west of the country. Putin thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would rally to his side, yet he has pushed them into the arms of the Ukrainian state more than ever before. Putin was afraid of Ukraine becoming aligned with NATO, yet now he has pushed them into the arms of the west completely and permanently. The invasion has killed tens of thousands of young Russian men, has caused considerable capital flight, large-scale brain drain, and empowered Prigozhin and other mercenary/sub-state militias (including Kadyrovites and such) to the point where a mercenary group was within a few hours of marching on Moscow(!) before deciding it wasn’t worth the effort (Prigozhin is still strong enough to be allowed to potter about diplomatic meetings, if you need any indication of the dire state of the Russian state). Putin claims to be conducting de-Nazification yet his policies since 2014 have uniformly strengthened the position of the far-right within Ukrainian state + society.

        Plus the conduct of the Russian Army and its affiliated elements has been extremely inhumane. I would not say there is evidence of genocide, no (though the large-scale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their Russification, if true on a systemic scale, would be an act of genocide-I do not think there is enough evidence to say either way yet), but there is evidence of systematic and systemic abuses on a VASTLY larger scale than we have seen from the Ukrainians. It is a catastrophe of Russia’s own making.

        To get back on topic (sorry), I do not see how you can admonish Ukrainians for supporting any means for their national self-defence. They have every right to resist the invasion and to not want part of their homeland (territory and ‘land’ is important in all national identities/mythologies), no? There is no contradiction between supporting this right to self-defence and self-determination and hating the Nazi groups which, unfortunately, have an outsized power within the Ukrainian military (but do not completely control the state-Zelensky is Jewish and a Russian-speaker!). Yes, Ukrainian national mythology has its share of far-right and general awful elements to it, but unfortunately that’s common in a lot of Eastern Europe and as per studies Nazism and antisemitism do not have more support in Ukraine than in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe. There has been plenty of polling/surveying on these topics in Ukraine. There is more so just a lack of understanding as to what the Banderites actually did in WW2, not real support for their actions/Nazi collaboration. That’s bad but not what some are saying on here.

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To clarify my stance, I want the war to end as soon as possible so that all the people on the ground can stop killing each other for no reason. I also agree that Russia invading was, in addition to being wrong because war is bad, incredibly stupid and needlessly damaging to their own position (I was one of the people saying they wouldn’t launch an invasion because it seemed like it would backfire). We’ll see how the economic and geo-political damage ends up shaking out in a decade or so, I imagine. And of course it’s understandable for Ukrainians to take up arms to defend their land, though it will likely only prolong the suffering, especially if we agree that life on the ground under the Ukrainian state would be little better than living under the Russian one. I also recognize that Putin claiming the war was necessary for de-nazification etc was the equivalent of pretending to care about human rights to sell the war to the populace; yes there are nazis and the far right is a huge problem in Ukraine, but that isn’t something Russia actually cares about (beyond a potential insurgency, anyway).

          However, the point of my comment was not to condemn Ukraine. Instead, it was to point out that the US is not interested in helping Ukrainians (something we clearly agree on), and that in fact they are more than willing to sacrifice them in a conflict to achieve their own ends, namely isolating/weakening Russia and opening up Ukraine to even more voracious imperial extraction.

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians

          Do you support the right to self-determination for Ukrainians in the Donbas region? Do you support their right to live in peace, free from artillery bombardment and being terrorized by far-right paramilitary groups? Or do you only support the rights of Ukrainians that the state department tells you to care about?

          • SeborrheicDermatitis [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think that is in any contradiction w/ my comment whatsoever.

            I think a peace deal involving referendums in these areas (not under military occupation-creates unfair and unfree conditions for a referendum e.g., as in Crimea!) would identify the actual will of the people in these parts of the Donbas. I expect heavily that Crimea above all would vote to leave Ukraine and I think it has every right to do so ethically-speaking, though I do not think the referendum was carried out in free/fair conditions.

            • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think a peace deal involving referendums in these areas (not under military occupation-creates unfair and unfree conditions for a referendum e.g., as in Crimea!) would identify the actual will of the people in these parts of the Donbas.

              Ukraine had even better terms than that under the Minsk agreements. They refused to hold to the terms and stop shelling Donbas, even after they signed a ceasefire twice. After the invasion there was another attempt at peace talks, it ended with Ukraine dragging their own negotiator into the street and shooting him in the head. Late last year Zelensky signed a decree making it illegal to negotiate peace with Putin. The few times Ukraine has retaken a major area they immediately begin purging “collaborators and traitors”. If Russia pulled back it’s military Ukraine would just immediately invade those areas, regardless of any agreements they signed.

              I’m not philosophically opposed to your idea, it really would be the best outcome. It’s just impossible to actually implement.

              • SeborrheicDermatitis [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think that is just a fundamentally one-sided understanding of why the Minsk Agreement failed to be honest. It was a poorly-written, unimplementable deal that neither side took seriously. It’s not like the D/LPRs and Russia were saints here. Indeed, there also isn’t much reason to believe the D/LPRs were, beyond the first year or so, really representative of the people in the region’s desires, since the original independent-minded leaders were replaced by those much closer to Russia. FURTHERMORE, the Minsk agreement was simply too unpopular in Ukraine for any government to survive implementing it. Ukrainians largely viewed the D/LPRs as Russian proxies (to what extent they are is arguable, but they certainly were less so as time went on and never were even to start with) and, in large, abhorred this sort of Russian influence.

                It wasn’t just because Ukrainian state was war-mongering and poor baby Russia was forced to step in. This is not to say at all that the Ukrainian Government made no mis-steps in the build-up to the war-yes, they definitely did, and the Ukrainians simply didn’t believe Putin would be rash or stupid enough to launch such an invasion until very close to the time so never really backed down from a maximalist NATO position and didn’t prepare properly for early-war defences. But it’s not like you are saying. Both sides caused the failure of Minsk, and neither side was ready to adhere to it.

                • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was a poorly-written, unimplementable deal that neither side took seriously.

                  Then why did Ukraine sign the two separate Minsk agreements if they never intended to follow them?

                  FURTHERMORE, the Minsk agreement was simply too unpopular in Ukraine for any government to survive implementing it.

                  Peace with Donbas was popular with Ukrainians. In the most recent elections the candidate that ran on a platform of peace with Donbas won the election and became president. Zelensky then went to the front and gave his “I’m not some loser” speech to Ukraine’s militants on the front to try to deescalate the war. Once he failed to reign in his paramilitaries he began agitating for more war.

                  You are correct that it’s unlikely that a Ukrainian government could survive implementing peace with Donbas. This isn’t because it was unpopular with the people of Ukraine but because it was unpopular with the people in power. After the US-backed coup far-right elements were placed in positions of power in the Ukrainian government, especially in the police and military. If that failed, the US could have once again opened the floodgates of money from NGOs to anti-government protestors and replaced whoever the Ukrainian people elected with a more “pro-democratic” leader.

                  You’re right that overall the central Ukrainian government wanted war too much to abide by the ceasefire treaties they signed. I just don’t think that excuses them. Wanting war too much to do peace is literally what I’m criticizing Ukraine for.

      • navorth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t write two paragraphs excusing Russia and then say “I’m not excusing Russia btw.”

        No country should be able to force ‘my way or a military invasion’ ultimatum on another non hostile sovereign state. If a government interprets a neighboring country joining a purely defensive treaty out of their own volition (no, Ukraine is not secretly run by the CIA after Maidan) as a hostile act, that only means the nationalism levels went out if control.

        I’m normally very critical of the US, but neither them nor NATO can be blamed for this conflict.

        • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          For the first 40 years of NATO’s existence it sought to offensively undermine democracy and reinforce the states of NATO aligned countries in Europe through terrorism.

          They then rather offensively carpet bombed Yugoslavia killing and wounding thousands of civilians ( many of whom were from Kosovo the people they purportedly wanted to help), 3 foreign diplomats by bombing a foreign embassy not in anyway involved in a conflict and completely destroying the infrastructure of Serbia.

          They then offensively invaded Afghanistan where they destabilized the country, toppled the government and then put pedophile psychos in charge because they were the ones willing to work with us, killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and then ended up putting the original government back in charge 20 years later.

          Finally they offensively took the most prosperous country in Africa, a country with universal college, healthcare, jobs programs, and housing, a desert country that had a 200 year supply of water and bombed the fuck out of it, destroying the water supply, plundering the gold, supporting the precursors to ISIS, and turned the country into a place with fucking slave auctions.

          But yeah NATO is a defensive alliance.

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO - I protested against my country involvement when possible and do agree about them being either dumb decisions (Kosovo) or straight up war crimes (Afghanistan). They shouldn’t have happend.

            My point still stand though. NATO doesn’t threaten Russia borders. It could be called ‘Anti-Russia-Country-Club’, but even then the only things threatened by existence of NATO are post-USSR legacy and economic interest. Not exactly arguments to mount a large scale invasion/ethnic cleansing.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              34
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO

              You’ll just ignore their relevance to why NATO approaching your doorstep is, in fact, hostile and aggressive.

              NATO was literally created to oppose the USSR and the left in Europe generally, and did not disband after the fall of the USSR, instead taking up further aggression and at greater range, and keeping a very clear encirclement position around Russia. The bases got larger, the spending increased, and membership was sought to undermine any countries stepping out of line of the American-imposed order.

            • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              27
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If NATO, as we both agree, is an aggressive group of countries that has a contemporary history of attacking countries that are not aligned with the West, despite many of these countries trying to align themselves with the West in good faith (Libya, Russia, and Iran all helped the West in the war on terror), then what is the appropriate way for Russia to react to the expansion of NATO to their doorstep? And I’m asking this as a genuine question, you’re Russia how are you reacting to the West surrounding you despite assisting them, when do you stop tolerating increased military encroachment?

              I don’t think that Russia invaded Ukraine because of only NATO expansion, but it obviously played a role given that the peace agreement that was nearly agreed upon April 2022 had Ukraine agree to neutrality. I think a lot of it came down to the genocide of ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the East and Ukraine’s increased shelling of the region in February 2022 is probably what escalated the war into what we see today.

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a good question. Let me tackle it from a different angle though - why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                As a resident of one, I think it’s because they feel that Russia after Yeltsin has the exact same imperialistic principles USSR did. And it doesn’t matter to them that Russia did cooperate with the West, because they see those principles as enough threat. Thus, they have the same reason to fear Russia as Russia has to fear NATO.

                Perhaps if NATO disbanded before 1999 we wouldn’t have current Russia, but that’s alt history.

                • NPa [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  32
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                  Because they are run by right-wing oligarchies that want to consolidate and protect their accumulated wealth and power? The imperialism is coming from inside the house.

                • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Russia after Yeltsin

                  Russia during Yeltsin rolled in the tanks on its own parliament. The absence of foreign invasions was not for lack of malice, but for lack of capability.

                  The reason why ex-Warsaw Pact countries are flocking to NATO is because when the communists left power, the reactionaries resurged. And naturally the reactionaries in power wanted to be part of a right-wing alliance. But no matter what revanchists might tell you, living standards across Eastern Europe were better in the 1980s than they were in the 2000s.

                • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s a good question. Let me tackle it from a different angle though - why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                  Fellow ex Warsaw Pact resident here.

                  They wanted to join NATO because after the dissolution of the USSR these countries were pushed into a deep economic crisis, to which one of the solutions, apart from relentless austerity programs was the privatization of the shit ton of public assets they had. Of course lots of western companies were in on this since for them these assets were really cheap and they had a lot of money. The city hall of the town i went to university to became a fucking McDonald’s.

                  Thing is, a lot of people didnt like this, not just the austerity, but the handing of domestic assets to western companies. And they were not even that wrong about it! In Albania, in 1997 a series of bankruptcies of asset managing companies (most western owned) who were basically scamming people who barely came into contact with capitalism, telling them theyll get 50% interest rates for their money, led to a brutal uprising where ordinary people were sacking military bases, setting up machine gun nests in the borders of cities and overthrew the government (after half a year of protests).

                  In the meantime Russia was led by well-known alcoholic, Boris Yeltsin, who doesn’t strike me as the napoleonic conqueror people make him out to be.

                  So why did these countries join NATO? Because they DESPERATELY needed the money, but western companies wouldnt invest in (exploit) them if they dont have insurances (troops that could be sent against the people anytime an Albanian-type revolt breaks out or an anti-western government come in power who would try to renationalize assets) that their investments (exploitation) runs as smoothly as possible. And it works. People like to say that “ackshually the living standards went up in Eastern Europe”, but they never stop to check that it only went up because the rich got richer, pulling the average up. The working class’ lives stagnated at best, except the social net around them is rapidly brought down. Older people are not nostalgic for socialism here because theyre becoming senile, but because they see every time that they go to a hospital that the increasingly privatized healthcare system is crumbling.

                  Don’t believe me? It’s fine. But i would suggest that you examine who the current pariahs are in NATO: Hungary, whose government has to rely in a lot of things to the cheapest due to a ravaged economy (both by corruption and privatization), so they rely a lot on domestic production and trying to hand off as little stuff to western corporations as possible (and still fail at it, hence why they are still intact), and Turkey, who makes no secret of wanting to standing on its own feet and not rely on western corporations.

            • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              NATO weapons are bombing Russia literally right now.

              Are the Russians sincerely supposed to believe that NATO isn’t a threat

              That’s sort of a hard reality to contextualize away

        • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          non hostile sovereign state

          For the past several decades NATO has utterly destroyed various countries around the world, while maintaining ruthless tradewars against the peoples of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela, as well as a brutal colonial regime across much of West Africa. NATO won’t stop at invading your country either. They’ll maintain occupations in Syria and blockades of Afghanistan from now until the end of time.

          NATO would rather see the people of Niger and Mali starve to death rather than pay market rates for their resources.

          NATO will crow that countries in South America are too defiant, why, they didn’t even try and coup the brazilian elections last year!

          NATO is, simply put, a defensive alliance of the world’s preeminent warmongerers.

          Hosting NATO troops is the epitome of hostility.

          Unfortunately for you some countries can actually resist. And resist they shall.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          non hostile sovereign state

          Non-hostility is when you do ethnic cleansing against the ethnicity the neighboring country is named after, engage in a war right by the borders to support that ethnic ckeansing, violate your treaties to end that war, and cozy up your coup government to the military organization intended to encircle that country, an org that regularly engages in aggression.

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’. There were tensions between Russian and Ukrainian nationals in those territories, but I’ve seen no data on large scale extermination operations.

            Ukraine engaged in a defensive war with a force clearly backed by their stronger neighbor that just laid claim to another piece of their land (Crimea). This was a land grab in all but name, no matter how much propaganda tries to paint it as a legitimate independence movement. Blame for casualties of that war lies entirely on separatists and Russia.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’

              The ethnic cleansing was and is part of official Ukrainian policy. Do you think the sneaky Rooskies infiltrated and forced Kyiv to drop Russian as an official language, one that could be learned and used in schools in Donbas? Did they cleverly rename the streets to Bandyerite fascist names? Did they create the Azov Batallikn, Righy Sector, etc - the Ukrainian fascist groups weaponized against the ethnic Russian civilians of Donbas and now directly incorporated into the government and armed forces? Did Russia secretly create the entire Kyiv side of the civil war that heavily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure on the Donbas side?

              Cool to learn, I didn’t know that.

            • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine has used internationally banned cluster munitions in the donbass since 2014. A six year old playing in a field and dying to unexploded ordnance, whether that child is a Russian or Ukrainian speaker, is a horrific tragedy. These bombs are a form of terrorism sponsored by the post-coup Ukrainian state, and the nazi paramilitaries active in the area were and are state-sponsored terrorists.

              https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But I never said I support cluster munitions. Fuck them, and fuck the Nazis.

                I did not just engage in a few hours of discussion to try and convince anyone that Ukraine is the shining beacon of hope and democracy. It isn’t, they have problems. So does every state. Some (like Russia) just seem to have comparatively more of those, or are not particularly good at dealing with them.

                • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The problem though is that these issues are self-perpetuating. Both the current Russian and post-2014 Ukraine governments are the products of US interference. If we were truly spreading Democracy, then they would be capable of mediating these conflicts peacefully. Since Capital dictates the terms of our international intervention, it puts its own interests first, and it’s very interested in selling weapons. I just can’t accept the premise that selling more weapons will lead to any sort of long-lasting peace or democracy in the region.

            • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’.

              there have been reports of Ukranian paramilitaries shelling the Donbas going back almost a decade. multiple peace treaties were signed over it, all aiming to stop the ethnic cleansing. each and every one of those treaties were violated. this is all extremely well-documented. can you even prove that a single of these reports is fabricated?

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah yeah, I know Hexbear. I don’t agree with their pro-imperialism, but at the same time they are not wrong with their socialist takes.

            That’s why it’s worth debating them - they are not inherently evil like fascists are.

            • Gsus4@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In fascists’ defence, they have no theory to fall back on, it’s all just kneejerk reptilian brain brute force and brute words and brute cult of personality. That’s why I am befuddled whenever I see a leftist take an offensive realist perspective :/

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, according to what you’re saying, Mexico can never join BRICS if the US says no. Is that what you think? The US can be a pretty rabid animal too, as you say.

        • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What do you think would happen if, hypothetically speaking, a nearby state such as, let’s say, Cuba started hosting the military assets of a hostile power?

          What about even a distant nation such as oh I don’t know maybe Iran or one of the koreas started making weapons the US felt threatened by?

          Just thinking aloud here I don’t know.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody is offering Ukraine nukes, that’s what the Budapest memorandum was all about, knock it off.

            Cuba had its revolution and had its own arsenal provided by the USSR and has survived everything the US threw at it so far and Ukraine will survive russia too, but a moat would be handy :)

            • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              47
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              and has survived everything the US threw at it so far

              The point being the US threw a lot of shit at it because of course the US wouldn’t tolerate those missiles being there, and Russia won’t tolerate NATO being in Ukraine.

              If China made a defensive alliance with Mexico that included a military base in Tijuana, Mexico would suddenly be in need of some democracy and freedom.

              Continuing to deny this basic reality means your position isn’t connected to reality.

              Peace requires a sustainable security situation for Russia not just for Ukraine and for Russia that means no NATO since NATO is hostile to Russia. It’s clear and denying this is just putting your head in the sand.

              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                Does the US have to place nukes in Ukraine so that by removing them russia will stop attacking it?

                But by all means, if Trump starts threatening Mexico with some bullshit invasion to clean out the cartels, they should by all means ask China and anyone else to help out, sure! That’s how it works in a bipolar world (there is no multipolar world, russia’s empire is gone and China+US will make sure it never returns)

                NATO is not hostile to russia, NATO prevents russia from invading its western neighbours, which is obviously a bummer to russia.

                The sustainable security solution is: russia respects borders and other countries’ sovereignty. The end.

                • Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                  Yeah so the obvious conclusion is that peace in Cuba required satisfying the US’s demand to not have a Soviet military presence there.

                  Likewise peace in Ukraine requires not having a NATO military presence there.

                  Pretending that NATO isn’t hostile to Russia is also simply disconnected from reality. You need to connect your world view to reality.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  30
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                  You get that in this analogy Ukraine is taking the place of Cuba, right? Like NATO is using Ukraine as a disposable proxy to bleed Russia… okay well the metaphor falls apart because the details are really different, but Cuba was threatening the US in a vaguely similar way to how Ukraine is threatening Russia, and the peace deal was that Cuba would remove all the missiles and in exchange the US would remove it’s missiles from Turkey and not massacre the Cuban population. So the equivalent would be Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO (not that NATO was ever going to let them), disarm, and stop trying to wipe out Russian speaking Ukrainians.

                  NATO is not hostile to russia

                  NATO’s explicit purpose is and always have been the destruction of the Russian state and the pillaging of it’s resources and it’s beyond bad faith to state otherwise.

            • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              35
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine’s coup government was threatening to construct nukes shortly before the US proxy war there began. I would cite my sources but I know you won’t care 😉

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, BRICS isn’t really a formal alliance but if it were? Yeah, joining a hostile alliance while sharing a border with the US is asking for trouble, and the US has committed all matter of atrocities in latin america. I do think an outright invasion would be less likely than their usual method of military coups and death squads.

          • xNIBx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When did the last military coup in Latin America, orchestrated by CIA ,happen? I am not saying that the US is great but at some point, we need to talk about the present. And at the present(and recent past), the US is not trying to overthrow a government, at least not by using military force in Latin America.

            As far as the war in Ukraine in concerned, the US is doing the right thing, even if they are doing it because it benefits them. This is the only time since WW2 that the US is doing the right thing. Have you ever wondered why historically neutral countries like Sweden want to join NATO now? What caused that change?

            Mexico has every right to join the Warsaw Pact and i would be on Mexico’s and Russia’s side if the US invaded Mexico for wanting to join an alliance.

            Now let’s talk about how NATO is threatening Russia. How would that happen? If Ukraine joined NATO, do you think NATO would invade Russia? You do realize that Russia has nukes, right? NATO is not about invading Russia, it’s about preventing Russia, a big country with nukes, from invading smaller countries with no nukes.

            • Marxine@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              In 2014, Brazil, the coup on Dilma Roussef from the Worker’s Party received backing from the USA. In 2018, the unlawful conviction of Lula from the same party, was not only backed but also had strategical support from the USA through instructions on how then judge Sergio Moro should conduct the trial and how he should work with and favour the prosecution, even by the use of fake witnesses and evidence.

              They also had the heaviest of hands against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela a few years later.

              So the USA never stopped meddling and forcing their way on South America, really.

                • Marxine@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not necessary to have a military base or troops in order to threaten the sovereignty of a country. This is not only a bad faith argument, but it’s incredibly braindead as well.

                  And if you’re insistent on semantics, yes, the USA deployed troops for a “joint training” with Brazilian troops during (far-right USA backed) Bolsonaro’s government.

              • xNIBx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Did the US deploy military troops in Bolivia? You do understand the difference between saying “yeah, we support you” and then local forces do a coup and literally invading and using your own troops to violently overthrowing a government. Dont you think there is a huge difference there?

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          NATO and BRICS are fundamentally different. You cannot compare them in good faith. NATO exists for the explicit purpose of destroying Russia. BRICS does not exist for the explicit purpose of destroying NATO, or America for that matter. It’s an extremely bad faith comparison.

          Also yeah America would flatten the Mexico City if Mexico tried to join BRICS. They’ve already agitated for a coup a number of times in the last decade.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          ?

          What component of BRICS is a military alliance? That’s a nonsensical comparison.

          And the Mexican president just said that Mexico is unable to join BRICS because of the geopolitical situation.

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If Mexico was given an army by China and started bombing Texas and committing ethnic cleansing, it would not be imperialism to try and stop that

          If the lines on a map are an issue for you, just imagine a world where the Us broke up and lost Texas to Mexico before the ethnic cleansing started

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “How dare ex soviet nations try to ensure their own protection after Russia showed multiple times they like to invade ex soviet nations!”

      • Tigbitties@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them

        Fuck that bully shit. They don’t own Ukraine and Georgia and they can make their own decisions. If Russia wanted a nato buffer zone they should have offered incentive. Look what they got instead…

      • LordR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember another time when some dictator wanted a bigger sphere of influence and started occupying other countries. Appeasement didn’t work than and it didn’t work with Russia.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I find in all Russia’s statements kind of ridiculous that it would have a say in how other sovereign countries handle their safety. Ukraine and Georgia have their own decisions to make

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know sovereignty isn’t real, right? Like it’s just not? Countries invade whoever they want whenever they think they can get away with it? Most of Europe just went in to Iraq illegally and murdered a million people? Ukraine sent a lot of troops on that adventure. The US just kills people and topples governments all over? France controls colonial possessions in Africa? Canada de-facto runs a bunch of African territory through it’s ruthless resource extraction firms? South Korea and Okinawa are under US military occupation? North Korea only remains Sovereign because they can make Seoul glow in the dark if the US tries something? The west uses ruthless monetary manipulation, dumping of consumer goods and food, outright piracy and theft, to control other countries?

          This isn’t model UN.

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not pretty but this is how the world works. If a man is holding a gun to your head, and says he’ll kill you if you don’t give him your wallet, do you hold onto the wallet out of principle because robbery is immoral?

          • sol@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The man with the gun to his head doesn’t have much of a choice if he wants to live. You, though, have a choice between criticising and defending the man with the gun, and you’re choosing to defend him.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bruv you’re not this dense. NATO, an alliance constructed for the express purpose of destroying Russia, which did not disband when the USSR was destroyed, which continued to advance towards and encircle Russia for decades after the fall of the USSR, which refused the RF’s attempts to join the alliance, which has engaged in numerous illegal wars of aggression, is the man holding the gun and I swear to god just because you were born there that does not make them the good guys.

          • timespace@lemmy.ninja
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ohhhh, I get hexbear now.

            Wow, what an amazingly terrible worldview.

            “I told you I was going to rob you if you tried to defend yourself, it’s your fault.”

            • Gsus4@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s the genesis of the word “tankie”, much misused today: they say they are communist, but then advocate for the law of the strongest and can’t conceive of an alliance that isn’t more than vassalage and sending in the “tanks” against their allies to ensure they don’t fall out of line. That’s why everyone ran away from the Warsaw Pact when it ended whereas NATO endured.

          • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Alone, you do what you do to stay alive.

            That’s why the world and people need its alliances, unities and consequences for harmful actions. The world doesn’t work by giving up to the worst offender.

            Russia is holding a gun to Ukraine’s head and saying it’ll both kill and take everything.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              ·
              1 year ago

              The world doesn’t work by giving up to the worst offender.

              Yeah it does. Everyone does what America says or America either coups their leader or launches an illegal war of aggression and starts slaughtering their people. I

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            lol, thug ethics. AKA offensive realist geopolitics. The great do what they want and the small accept their fate.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Jesus christ bro Realpolitik is all there is and all there has ever been. When you live on a planet where a bunch of gerotocratic psychopaths could push the big red button at any time you don’t play games. You know America is the baddies, right?

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is no ethics between capitalist states, there are only stratagems for how to exploit everyone else and not get exploited yourself.

              Rhetoric about liberal world orders and rules and ethics are just propaganda to keep their own people complacent, like providing indulgences to themselves. They are wildly inconsistent and the self-named “good guys” carry out the absolute worst violence.

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          you do know there’s been an ongoing civil war in Ukraine since 2013 and that fascists have been genociding Russian speakers in the independent republics that have been trying to split off from Ukraine in that time, right? and you know that Ukraine violated multiple peace treaties in the process of doing so?

          • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And we know that the separatist fascists are Russian plants. The future will tell us how much there’s a real independence movement instead in the areas.

            Nevertheless, conquering and genociding whole Ukraine is not approvable

            • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the idea that no one can think for themselves and must all be plants, shills, or dupes because they don’t support your worldview is just plain racist. those damn asiastics, how could they possibly want to live their own lives and be free from shelling by a coup government that’s trying to annihilate them – it must be plants.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The very first thing the Rada did when they were installed after the coup was ban the use of the Russian language in all official capacities. The country had been de-facto multilingual up until that point, though legally you were supposed to use Ukrainian. Give the ethnic and regional nature of the coup, ie Galacians vs everyone out East, it sent a pretty strong message which was received and understood in Donbas.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those lifelong Ukrainian trade unionists locked in their union hall and set on fire? Yeah, just fascust Russian plants.

              How did I arrive at such a smart and correct thought? I get that question a lot. Listen, tankie

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ukraine and Georgia have their own decisions to make

          Then “the west” should let them make their own decisions instead of instigating coups everytime they decide against western interests.

          • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Of course, in the most simplified form. But I take it you maybe don’t mean Monaco or Uruguay or Botswana etc.

            • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes I mean “the west” in the geopolitical term, not the geographical term. I think it’s the one that gets the point across the clearest. I could also use the term imperial core or imperial triad, but I’m not sure if many would understand it.

              • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah I get it. It somewhat scratches off Botswana.

                Imperial core or triad is an interesting and new take yes… Could be USA+Russia+China. Isn’t that more than “the west”. Some can’t decide if Russia is west or not.

                I see some applying that term to US and changing the rest between anyone maintaining neutral relations with them. Yeah probably not an accurate idea.

                • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  18
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The imperial triad is actually an old term, coined by Samir Amin I think, it refers to the co operation between the USA, Europe and Japan. Hence the usage of triad. And imperial because they are the old school imperial and colonial powers.

                  This is why I prefer using “the west”, because people generally know what I’m talking about. As illustrated by your comment assuming the imperial triad could refer to USA + China + Russia, instead of the actual definition.

    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The US dares to coup a democratically elected government, and then its neighbor invades at the behest of people the new government were persecuting after two different ceasefires are broken by Ukraines puppet government.

      Dronies be like “oh no our wholesome smol bean azov fighters are being oppressed”

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even some otherwise good regular leftists have absolute dogshit takes on Ukraine. It’s like they’re allergic to even being coincidentally on the same side as the US State Department that they start falling all over themselves to be like “Remember guys, US Bad,” and start like saying that we should be pushing Ukraine to give up territory to appease Russia so they don’t use nukes. When we already know because of Crimea that Putin will almost certainly just regroup and try again if they give him anything.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, I couldn’t understand it, because to most NATO members, NATO is the backbone of their security, but I’ve realised that many lefties’ reaction to NATO is akin to atheists’ emotional-dogmatic view of religion: They’re ever suspicious, never forgive nor forget past crimes, they reject all redeeming qualities and twist themselves to oppose benefitting them at the axiom level.

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say most leftists (specially the libertarian type), are not on the side of Russia on this.

        Tankies have just been really loud with their mental gymnastics lately.

      • krolden@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        OK so you’re siding with the state dept on Ukraine but when was the last time you agreed with usa foreign policy around the world? Why do you think they’re in any way acting on behalf of anyone in eastern Europe?

        • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think there’s been another time once in the twenty plus years that I’ve been concerned with politics have I agreed with the position of the state department. But to me that means that I for damn sure am not about to interrupt them when they’re finally for once in my life taking the morally correct action in funding the defense of Ukraine. I’ll save that for when they inevitably get back on their bullshit thanks.

        • Jmdatcs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So because the US has pulled a bunch of bullshit over the last several decades they shouldn’t get involved when there is a real evil to fight? That’s a boneheaded take. What if it was actual real Nazis? What if Nazis got ahold of a country in Europe and started invading and putting people into death camps? Should the US just say “I don’t know man, we’ve fucked up in the middle east, south America, and southeast Asia so much we’re just going to sit this out”?

          Yes, western imperialism is bad. No, everyone opposed to western imperialism is not necessarily good.

          Think of it as broken clock being right twice a day. Think of it however you need to. Russia needs to lose in Ukraine. And if that means the west gets a propaganda “win”, that sucks but just deal with it. Western countries getting egg on their faces isn’t worth letting Russia rape, murder, and steal.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        42
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because you don’t understand what imperialism means. US/EU capital is looting and exploiting the former socialist block and controlling it through western capitalist media, NGOs, and military bases. That’s imperialism. The Russians preventing Nazis from doing ethnic cleansing along their border and demanding not to be threatened with a gun to the head is not imperialism.

        • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Funny how living standards in the ex-soviet countries have improved considerably since joining the EU, but that has not been the case for the ones that chose to be kept under Russia’s sphere of influence. 🤔

          Looks like the EU is really bad at looting, they should learn from Russia.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            living standards in the ex-soviet countries have improved considerably since joining the EU

            Yeah the living standards sure did improve after one of the worst demographic disasters in that era. Easy for things to get better when you start from the bottom I mean come on do better.

          • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They didn’t improve at all. The rich are better off, thanks to mass privatization of public property. For the middle/working class, quality of life stagnated at best.

            Source: I live in an ex-soviet country.

          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            43
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            There was a massive dip in all those places in the 90s with shock therapy. A lot of people are still worse off in a lot of ways and angry. Hence AfD, Orban, PiS and all those other angry nationalists.

            Also, if you want to be fair, you should compare for example Poland to west Germany. Polish workers toil for German capitalists, and yet, somehow, they’re getting exploited way more than the German workers. Less pay, worse services, worse infrastructure, less worker’s rights. That whole arrangement is super-exploitative. Meanwhile foreigners bought most of that country. Treated like a colony basically.

            The Russians got fucked even worse than Poland in the 90s, which resulted in a backlash which Putin made himself the head of. What Russia is doing is self-preservation. Any state with the means to preserve it’s sovereignty from a hostile takeover would try to do so, it’s not just something an imperialist state would do. Hence Russia is not doing an imperialism here.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              37
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hell, compare East Germany to the reich West Germany. West Germany’s economic conquest of East Germany was incredibly ruthless and brutal, and East Germany never recovered from having it’s entire economy pillaged and burned.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  17
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah. It’s still technically illegal to get an abortion in the reich afaik. It was really something finding out that the gdr had gender parity in most fields before the west crushed it, and that western germany had to give women a bunch of rights to try to manage to political turmoil.

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            since joining the EU

            I hope you understand how this is an incredibly cherry-picked range. It’s like saying “look how steadily the American economy grew from the period of 1930 to 1940”.

            Many Eastern European countries in the EU are still being hollowed out and suffering massive brain drain. The model of “tributary state” accurately applies here.

          • Quimby [any, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            no they’re not here. they’re over in ukraine putting up statues of Bandera and wearing nazi symbols all over their military uniforms. were you not listening, or…?

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I mean, you’re not gonna like it, but;

            CW: Like over a hundred fotos that all have some kind of Nazi imagery in them, except one where I think they mistook a patch for the 14th Waffen SS Grenadiers 1st Galacian patch because it has similar elements

            https://imgur.com/a/8Oo74F9

            They’ve been open and pretty frank about their goals. I can explain all the symbols and their history and significance for you if you’d like.

            • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sorry to break it to you but are you aware of the Wagner group that has been fighting for Russia? They’re pretty Nazi as well and yet hexbear keeps cheering for Russia anyway, saying the only way to end the war is to have Ukraine give in to them. For some reason Ukraine has to be the bigger man, but Russia, the actual aggressor, who is also employing Nazi fighters, can’t?

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                1.) Killing Nazis is not a tit for tat thing. Everyone should kill all the Nazis they can.

                2.) Most of us are not cheering for Russia. This is not a sports game. There is not a goodguy and a badguy. The only thing I want out of this war is for the killing to stop and NATO’s hegemonic power diminished. No one is going to “win” this. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Nazis are emboldened and proliferating throughout Eastern Europe. Vast amounts of weaponry have gone missing and will begin being used in terror attacks in the next few years. Much of Ukraine’s last remaining state industries and farmland have been sold off the multinational vultures. The massive infrastructure damage in Ukraine is never going to be repaired. You’re treating this like a movie with a hero and a villain where someone wins and someone loses. That’s not how geopolitics work. The idea that Russia is an “aggressor” shows both ignorance of history and a failure to understand the security concerns of modern states and how conflcit is conducted. So many people have this very naive model un view that the lines on the map are real and you can be sovereign when you don’t have nukes. There’s a studious refusal to engage with the reality that NATO routinely engages in hostile wars of aggression and that countries all over the world will defend themselves from that to the best of their ability, regardless of your concept of morality or rule of law. Russia is intensely aware of what NATO did to Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria. They’re intensely aware of NATOs decades of sabotage and subversion, of death squads and assassins, of coups and coercion. And you can refuse to engage with that or understand it if you want. I can’t force you to acknowledge the world as it really is. But this ridiculous “oh Russia has Nazis so it” s okay that Nazis occupy positions of influence throughout Ukraine" thing is obnoxious. Round up all of Wagner and shoot them. I don’t care. Mercenaries are scum. I don’t care what happens to them. Nazis should be hunted down and killed regardless of where they are, not armed and emboldened.

                • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Your words don’t match your attitude. You guys constantly berate Ukraine and defend Russia, even when it has similar problems. The only actual solution you have is to have Ukraine give up and surrender sovereignty to Russia. The only place I agree with you is that all Nazis are bad.

                  And Russia is the one who attacked, that makes it the aggressor. Ukraine wasn’t even joining NATO until they made it seem more alluring, and even then their membership is still an open question, so none of that matters. And if NATO did attack Russia, then they would be the aggressor, and I would be arguing against them, because Russia would have the right to defend itself, just like Ukraine does. But it wasn’t. They just wanted territory. You guys also seem to just take Russian propaganda as truth, generally taking their reasons as good faith, claiming genocides against Russian speaking people’s (even though the President is one) just because they specified the official language or saying some Nazi terrorists are a reason to obliterate the country (even though Russia has some, too, as does the US. It doesn’t mean I want someone invading to stop them, destroying my house and shit). It would be like if some terrorists attacked the US and that was used as a reason to obliterate a country, or two. You claim you see the world as it really is, even though Russia didn’t have to attack and none of this had to happen. It reminds me of conservatives who are always telling people on the left to open their eyes and see how the world really is.

    • AttackPanda@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope we can keep supporting Ukraine. This is one of the few times in history when the scenario is so clear cut good vs evil. The Ukrainians fought hard to get out from under the thumb of Russia and the Russians just couldn’t have that so they invaded. The support the world provides to Ukraine is support provided for all Democracies.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought ‘tankie’ came from a video game. Turns out it’s been around since the USSR decided to roll into Hungary.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

      You mean a western led coup with assistance from neo nazis to remove the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014. With the explicit goal of “Latin Americanising” Eastern Europe and privatizing and selling off all their assets. The Ukrainian government still has a website up today for selling off anything not bolted down to the highest bidder. Shock doctrine 2.0.

      West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

      You mean forcing Ukraine to start a counter offensive using NATO combined arms tactics for witch Ukraine had neither the equipment or required training to execute. And with no will from the west to give Ukraine the required equipment (F-16 saga anyone?). How do you do a combined arms offensive without a fully functional air force? The worst part being that the west knew this, and still forced Ukraine to go ahead with the offensive anyways, knowing there was little chance of success.

      Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

      More like people saw this coming and think the loss of life over this attrition war is tragic. How does Ukraine win an attrition war against Russia? What is the exit plan? This is just Afganistan all over again in some ways.

    • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

      Said literally no one here, besides you trying to frame communism as war loving imperialists.

      Now that I’m speaking of war loving imperialists, what does that bring to mind?..

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      62
      ·
      1 year ago

      capabara-tank I regret to inform you that you have failed your introduction to 21st century history class capabara-tank

      Like just little things.

      Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it’s an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?

      Did you know Crimea has a 30 year long history of seeking more autonomy, or even independence, from Ukraine?

      Do you know what the very first action of the coup Rada was?

      Do you know what “encirclement” means?

      I know Plato’s Allegory of the Cave gets used a lot when discussion the hegemonic power of western propaganda over western people, but come on bruv.

      Do the words “Minsk II” mean anything to you?

      Are you aware of the tariff agreements in place between Russia and Ukraine in 2013?

      Do you know who Bandera was?

      Do you know what the Russian Federation’s stated causus belli for the invasion is?

      What do you know?

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t have the time for the classic tankie “reply with a wall of text and deflections”, I actually have a real job to attend to. But some main points.

        Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it’s an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?

        Do you also know that Russia took Sevastopol from Ukraine back in 2014?

        Tell me, do you also support Israel’s claims on Palestinian territory?

        Do you know what the Russian Federation’s stated causus belli for the invasion is?

        Yes.

        Do you know what the causis belli for the US’s invasion of Iraq was? Are you stupid enough to believe that one as well? Or does believing causus belli only applies to whatever country is not an ally of the US?

        What do you know?

        I know you should get a gold medal on mental gymnastics and double standards.

        • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          55
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          What you call “reply with a wall of text and deflections” is 90% of the time well informed and sourced discourse, you just dismiss it cause you can’t argue with it.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t have the time for the classic tankie “reply with a wall of text and deflections”

          This is literally a deflection to avoid dealing with the (inconvenient) basic facts you should’ve learned before having any opinion on this topic in the first place.

        • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll make it easier for you

          PIGPOOPBALLS

          I actually have a real job to attend to.

          Can’t be that important if you’ve got all this time lose arguments on the internet

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do you also know that Russia took Sevastopol from Ukraine back in 2014?

          Yes? Because the Black Sea Fleet is station in Sevastopol and Sevastopol is a vital strategic resource? Are we speaking the same language?

          Tell me, do you also support Israel’s claims on Palestinian territory?

          Non-sequitor?

          Do you know what the causis belli for the US’s invasion of Iraq was? Are you stupid enough to believe that one as well? Or does believing causus belli only applies to whatever country is not an ally of the US?

          … Okay so you know that UA was shelling Donbass and killing people for years, and the Rada was very openly hostile to the Russian speaking Ukrainian minority, right?

          I know you should get a gold medal on mental gymnastics and double standards.

          Could I get a sticker instead?

          Also that’s not a wall of text you dork it’s like 10 sentences.

        • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell me, do you also support Israel’s claims on Palestinian territory?

          To the degree the Palestinians have used their self determination to say they want to be Israel and not Palestine

          You’re really bad at analogies. You shouldn’t lean on them to avoid direct investigation.

  • diffuselight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s what a win win looks like. No need to be quiet around it. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Now everyone gets to replenish and modernize their weapons, test them in real conditions while making sure Russia gets enough of a bloody nose to not fucking try this shit ever again.

    Russia did the ‘fuck around and find out thing’. It was their choice and the only way they can win is by tankies convincing every other country that just saw rape, murder, pillaging and terrorism getting used on another country in Europe by a rabid bear that somehow Russia was justified and should be allowed a free pass. But it’s not working. The rabid bear is rabid, but there’s ways to deal with that.

    Because now they makes sure that every country around them is joining the anti rabid bear alliance.

    The way the OP framed the article is to create the idea that somehow Russia is good because US military is bad. But that’s a fallacy. The US military is perfectly capable of doing bad shit on behalf of the US, but that does not mean everyone else is good. Sometimes clobbering Nazis is win win and Russia should have know that. Their feeble at reframing may work on Fox brainwashed Republicans who are reduced to “Putins kills gays and is strong so Putin is good”, but it turns out Putin is a cuck taking it into the ass by his own chef.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It has been extremely obvious to everyone who isn’t an incredulous lib (ie the ledditor refugees from lemm.ee et al) that the US doesn’t actually give a shit about Ukraine and is more than happen to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training time while at the same time gobbling up Ukrainian state assets? And as we saw with how Afghanistan ended, the US will inevitably pull support, most likely because of Taiwan, and the Ukrainian war effort will collapse overnight just like Afghanistan imploded as soon as the US left the country.

    The US has to fight multiple fronts against its peer adversaries as well as not-quite peer adversaries. Just recently, there’s a coup in Niger with crowds of Nigeriens waving Russian flags cheering the coup leaders. While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens’ heartfelt desire to kick out the French and overexaggerate Russia’s involvement per usual, an anti-France alliance is forming in the Sahel, and Putin has launched a charm offensive courting African leaders. This is the formation of another front between the West and Russia, and the US will funnel resources away from Ukraine and towards various jihadist and separatist groups like Boko Haram in order to destabilize West Africa.

    Ukraine isn’t so exceptional that the US will be willing to abandon a front and lose say Taiwan for the sake of Ukraine. And from MSM reporting about the failed counteroffensive, we’re close to the “US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger” stage.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    These people are monsters, and the idiot liberals that have happily jumped on their barbarous murder machine are too.

    You sent tens of thousands of people to die in a futile meatgrinder while acting like you’re good people “”“helping”“” those you were killing. In reality what was happening was that you didn’t care about what happened to those people as long as it harmed some russians.

    The consequences of decades of anti-russian racism all came to a head in this war, with liberals LOVING the opportunity to be openly racist pieces of shit.

    All excused by what? Some fucking lines on a map? I don’t give a shit about lines on a map, I care about the tens of thousands of people’s lives wasted on this shit, both ukrainian and russian.

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The real question is why does russia want to kill Ukrainians to the last Ukrainian.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.

        The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn’t unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.

        So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russian conditions to even consider peace were pretty insane, like keeping all the territory their initial conquest managed to claim, removing the baltics and other countries bordering Russia from NATO and forbid Ukraine from joining any alliance. Not only could Ukraine not fulfill all those conditions, they would never accept that.

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are confused and are including open demands Russia made of the US / NATO prior to the invasion. Russia has not demanded that Ukraine somehow de-NATOify Baltic countries.

            Russia’s initial negotiation demands were things like this:

            • Denazification.
            • Demilitarization.
            • No application to NATO.
            • Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.
            • Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

            These are in no way insane demands given the context of NATO encirclement, the civil war and ethnic cleansing at their doorstep, and the fact that Russia is obviously never giving up Crimea. It is also… the lead-in to negotiations, which Ukraine started balking at around the same time reports came out about Western prevention of Ukraine participating.

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine’s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

              Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you’re getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine’s application was denied so there’s none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

                They’re very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

                1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn’t be controversial.

                2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO’s advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.

                3. Ukraine isn’t joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

                4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, “you couldn’t abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option”. Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia’s border. The failure od the status quo ans the West’s ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

                5. Ukraine isn’t getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

                Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine’s ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

                Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

                Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

                Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you’re getting that.

                Then you haven’t been paying attention. Like… at all. It’s been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

                The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine’s application was denied so there’s none of that either

                None of what?

                And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

                Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

                And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that’s a meaningless point.
                  2. The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.
                  3. Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.
                  4. One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.
                  5. They may now, depending on how the war goes.

                  No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn’t now. Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia. As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from. They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

                  None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn’t joining NATO.

                  The political leadership Nuland ‘selected’ was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That’s like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

                  Can’t find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

                  I’m guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I’d suggest going to some other sources.

            • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Denazification.

              Vague

              Demilitarization.

              Vague

              No application to NATO.

              Ukraine made that deal when they gave up nukes, Here’s Russia invading anyways

              Independence for Luhansk and Donetsk.

              No comment, shit’s too complex

              Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory.

              “Just concede the most valuable part of your country as a gesture of good faith”

            • dsmk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes. “Denazify” everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory… or else.

              Sure, totally fair demands. /s

              NATO encirclement

              Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else’s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

              It’s as if there’s a country to the east pushing the idea that they’re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn’t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country’s army should just invade!

              Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. “Denazify” everyone that thinks Ukraine is a country, give up all your weapons, and give us part of your territory… or else.

                Kind of amazing how liberals will tell themselves little stories and even believethem rather than actually having to learn something.

                You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. I’ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RF’s invasion.

                Can you explain why countries want to join NATO? Why do they want to give away some control of their military so badly and risk being dragged into someone else’s war just to join this alliance? Why are fairly neutral countries like Finland and Sweden joining it?

                These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And let’s just say I’m dubious that you’re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that they’re taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that they’re correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraine’s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

                It’s as if there’s a country to the east pushing the idea that they’re actually part of Russia, that their culture doesn’t exist, that their cities should be nuked or that said country’s army should just invade!

                Case in point that you’re not curious in any real answers.

                Reminds me of that meme where the guy puts something into his bike wheel and then blames someone else for the outcome.

                Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

                • dsmk@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh, I’m liberal now. Weird as I was a fascist just before I left reddit. In a few hours someone will call me a communist.

                  You should be honest with yourself and at least become familiar with the context of the demands before forming an opinion. I’ll give you a hint: UA does have a very real Nazi problem that is directly connected to RF’s invasion.

                  I’m very honest with myself. I also try to not bullshit myself into believing it’s only an Ukraine problem.

                  Russia didn’t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis. After Yanukovych weirdly reverted his position on Europe (European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement) and got kicked out, Russia decided to invade to support all those “Russian speakers”. Of course, there was even a referendum, but as Igor Girkin said, they had the guns and politicians did as they were told.

                  People like to forget that far-right groups like the Azov Battalion and some of far-left/anarchist groups that joined the fight were only created after the invasion, after the Ukrainian army completely failed to do their job. It’s as if the ultra-nationalist and people with more extreme views in general are the first to react to an aggression against their country! /s

                  But yes, Ukraine had “nazis”, but so did Russia. I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin (and his views), which seems to be liked even by Putin himself. As a space fan and a fan of some of the Soviet accomplishments, I couldn’t help but notice that when the war started, the boss of Roscosmos was Dmitry Rogozin… an old member of the Russian National Unity party, which had some “interesting” views. In fact, here’s a picture of young Rogozin with the flag of the party in the background. I’ll also give you a hint: they’re nazi as fuck.

                  I guess we need to invade Russia, right? And make some demands where Russia gives away part of their territory… at least that’s what the very well informed and smart people such as yourself think should happen? Or this only applies to when Russia has a problem with someone else?

                  Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%. And then Russia comes in, invades Ukraine again and transforms Azov into national heroes. Well, good fucking job Russia! I’m sure that helps reducing support for nazis. /s

                  These are open-ended questions and a proper explanation would take a long time. And let’s just say I’m dubious that you’re actually curious. The (over)simple answer is that they’re taking a deal to be subservient to the United States, which usually requires their political class, and therefore economic ruling class, to see an interest in doing do. Not that they’re correct - the US is slowly deindustrializing its European allies as we speak. The reason why those interests won out? Those are specific historical stories. Try answering your own question but for Ukraine’s toying with NAT membership. What led to the change in their political class?

                  If that’s the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy? The guy managed to give a new life to the alliance and even recruited 2 new countries where popular support to joining used to be really low. There’s no way he’s helping NATO so much without being part of all that. Surely you can see the guy is a plant?

                  Or maybe there’s a simpler explanation (Occam’s razor, for the cool kids).

                  Maybe people read what Russian politicians say, look at the size of their country, remember what happened during the days of the Soviet Union (and now at what happened to Ukraine) and say: “maybe we should be friends with that big guy over there, just in case the local bully decides to invade us”.

                  Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do, but if one reads Putin’s On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians and Address concerning the events in Ukraine, it’s not that hard to imagine that there’s a much simpler reason.

                  What lead to the change in Ukraine’s political class? Other than Yanukovych’s reversal and people getting pissed? I don’t know. If you’re suggesting any foul play, I’d like to remind you that Russia intervened directly in Belarus and Kazakhstan, so apparently that’s all good.

                  Case in point that you’re not curious in any real answers.

                  I’m curious, that’s why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says, am aware of his obsession with Peter the Great and his conquest of the Azov sea, etc. I also watch a bit of Russian television as they have interesting views on countries around them. I’m not even talking about weekly threats of nuking European cities or higher ups at Russia Today suggesting that Ukrainian kids should be killed in a river… Did you know that Kazakhstan now has a lot of “ethnic Russians” in need of protection? A bit weird since everything was fine until they stopped playing ball with Russia…

                  To know the real answers you can’t filter out everything that doesn’t fit your view. You have people like Putin making up excuses for his view that Ukraine is not really a proper country… yet you decide not to read it and to outright ignore it. And I’m the dumb guy who doesn’t want real answers?

                  Liberals often use cartoonish examples to understand a world for which their knowledge and ideology are inadequate.

                  My apologies, let me make it easier for you:

                  • Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives. They knew what they were doing, you don’t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

                  • Like any major power, they don’t give a fuck about Ukraine or the people that live in Ukraine. It’s not a nice thing, but hey, it is what it is.

                  • No, Russia didn’t have to invade. No, Ukraine wasn’t going to invade Russia (nuclear obviously, plus they struggle to take control of their own territory…). And no, there’s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (they’ve been trying since the early 2000’s…).

                  Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine. Just don’t try to come up with bs excuses for what they’re doing. You like Russia and you like what they’re doing. I on the other hand don’t agree with they’re doing and also have a similar position when other countries do the same, so you can see why I don’t support their invasion of Ukraine.

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, you’d think that the US talked Ukraine into invading Russia just for fun, and that Russia was simply left with no choice.

        The killing can stop absolutely any day now - all Putin has to do is pull out and pay for his mess, easy peasy

          • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            All you have to do is read through this very thread to find numerous examples of hexbears acting like US liberals are primarily (or second only to Ukraine itself) for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

            “Why could Ukraine have just bent over and let Russia take it over??? And why couldn’t the rest of the world just pretend it never happened?? What about 'Murica in the middle east???”

            Sounds pretty familiar to me.

              • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s literally everywhere in this thread. There’s history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian’s demands.

                It’s insane to me that these are the same people who would probably say that the US shouldn’t have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, or that the US shouldn’t invade Cuba. In their view, since the US did a coup there once, I guess all their people deserve to die and lose their sovereignty? How does that make sense?

                “No, we just want the US and Europe to stop giving them weapons to defend themselves!” OK then, then what do you think will happen? More deaths and then a loss of sovereignty obviously. Why is this on them and not on Russia, who simply have the option of stopping their aggression and walking away?

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s literally everywhere in this thread. There’s history lessons abound about how bad Ukraine is (with no noticeable criticism of Russia) but no example of what should be done now except to have them give up their sovereignty, their most valuable land, and giving in to Russian’s demands.

                  Show one example, lib.

    • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      As opposed to the alternative, surrendering to Russia to the last Ukrainian.

      This argument assumes that absent US backing Ukraine and Russia would not be at war. Ukraine is not just a pawn between a Russia-US struggle, it’s a state which has asked for assistance in an existential struggle with a much larger authoritarian aggressor. Ukrainians are dying because of Russian aggression, not US backing.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      So as someone not close to this war, and as someone who’s always been open to the idea that the worst outcome for the war is for it to be drawn out for a long time, and that the west should think more clearly about what’s really going on here, but also as someone who would probably have picked up a gun and prepared to die if an invading force I didn’t like came for my country … what’s the alternative for the Ukrainians here? Or, do you think Ukraine should be conquered and are fighting an unjust war?

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        what’s the alternative for the Ukrainians here?

        Not shelling the Donbass for the past 8 years for one. That was them fucking around and the Russian invasion is them finding out.

      • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apparently their government messed up years ago so now they all have to die. Seriously, look at the replies from hexbear to your question. The obvious answer is that they were attacked, they now have to defend themselves, and the US and Europe are helping them do that. And even if it’s just to weaken Russia, it’s also what the Ukrainian people would want, just like you or I would want someone to hand us a rifle if someone is attacking us.

        But they can’t say that, so they have nothing they can say to this question, no answer, no solution, just what coulda shoulda, etc. They can’t empathize with Ukrainian citizens protecting their land when invaded, just like you or I would do, because the US sucks. And it does, but that’s besides the point. Oh well. Ukraine has some Nazis so I guess Russia gets to invade their neighbors when they feel like it and take Crimea or similar territories, like they’ve been doing with Georgia and other places near them for awhile now. And it’s their neighbors jobs to just allow it and not ally with anyone to prevent it.

        • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea, I’m more or less with you. As someone curious to get to know their community better, this isn’t, TBH, the best introduction/impression they could have given (ie, the replies to my question). There’s a difference between whether there’s any justification for Russia’s acts of aggression and my actual question of what else could ordinary Ukrainians actually do, which not only requires some empathy for actual real life people being crushed under the boots of governments (something I thought Hexbear might have cared about??) but also raises the serious question, for me, about whether military force is ever morally justifiable (however much russian, ukrainian or western nations are responsible for the escalation to this).

          Instead, the reflex by those replying seems to have been to ignore all of that and abstract the situation to higher level political tennis, where avoiding that was the essential point of my question. I get that that’s where the heat of the topic is for them (and probably in general), but still … sighs.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russia openly states that their goal is the elimination of Ukrainian identity. Literally genocide. And here you are being smug about it, believing your edgy contrarian sentiment is justified by the evils of a country which is not even party to the war.

      Talk about rent free mind rot.

        • socsa@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Actual genocide like forced deportation of children? Or do you require actual gas chambers before you care?

              • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                57
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What a shock, the person accusing other people of not caring about genocide can’t actually answer the question, because they don’t actually give a shit about genocides themselves, they just use it as an emotional cudgel to try and win debate points.

                • socsa@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not that I can’t answer the question, or that I deny evidence of genocide in Ethiopia, China and Yemen. In fact, I want to make it very clear that only one of us in this conversation is a genocide denier. It’s that your attempt at deflecting to a completely unrelated topic is pathetic (and frankly lazy) whataboutism.

                  More than anything, I don’t understand why so many leftists want to die on this particular hill. It just makes it feel like your stated values are merely ideological lip service.

          • Flaps [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            ‘Put the children back in the warzone! rage-cry Also let’s stop pretending the west is above that. Key difference is that we let the people fleeing western’ foreign policy’ drown in the mediterranian sea, rather than housing them.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if there was a more efficient way of employing people without having executives from the MIC getting almost all the benefit?

  • iquanyin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s not “the quiet part” as you imply. your insinuating that we made this war happen for the reasons he gives. no, context is king. he is merely trying to justify our involvement in the face of criticism. russia has long wanted to grab more countries. putin is a dictator, have you heard? he poisons opponents and attacks other countries to smash them back into his idea of what russia should be.

  • sab@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting how the republicans believe in Keynesian economics, but exclusively when it’s applied for feeding the military industrial complex.

    In this situation I agree with the need to support Ukraine, but I wish they would make the same realization about infrastructure investments as well.

  • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Werent a bunch of reddit brigaders obliterated forgetting to turn off location services posting from their top secret training facility?

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    To all the people not wanting to extend the proxy war against the war crime committing Russians: what do you expect will happen if you stop funding Ukraine defense against war crimes? You think Russians just go home? You think China and North Korea don’t look around at adjacent territories licking their lips? Do you understand what deterrence means?

    Before you respond like a tankie that America is an imperialist shithole, America is not the one (this time) committing war crimes, RUSSIA is.

  • sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whilst not suffering a series of mini-strokes on national television, Mitch is as always razor sharp and the epitome of giving zero fucks about any human lives/hides other than his own. May the Sweet Lord Above see fit to drown this nearly calcified ghoul in a bed of his own shit, like real soon. Tomorrow morning would be cool