There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased]

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: lemm.ee/post/4085063

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

And why shouldn’t he?

Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

russia can end this whenever they want by restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, if they think the US is benefiting so much from it at their expense. The US is just making it much harder for russia to reach its maximalist goals: to conquer Ukraine. One of those is a war crime, the other one is supporting international law.

Pili ,

Alright but what would guarantee Russia’s safety after they do that? It’s obviously not in their interest. What they want is to negotiate a peace treaty, which is why they are holding their defense line so strongly until their opponents are exhausted.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

What I heard were rumors that the “UN” could sort of hold Ukraine’s occupied territories “in escrow” as a DMZ buffer, but it’s not a final solution (we know how these handovers have turned sour in the past), because eventually you’d have to divide it, or create a new country…the essential is that russia does not get rewarded for its aggression with territory to brag about in the history books and that there is no chance that any native pro-russian Ukrainian in the buffer zone suffers reprisals…

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

those territories are independent republics that have been embroiled in a civil war with Kyiv for 9 years. Ukraine’s fascist factions within the military have been shelling those republics in violation of multiple peace treaties that have been signed over the past 9 years. securing the independence of those regions is Russia’s entire pretext for invading - in response to requests for military aid from said republics.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

I could even imagine a scenario where if they had become independent republics, russia parked tanks there and said: “peace now”, it could have worked, but Putin got greedy. Then to pile on the catastrophic stubbornness, russia annexed parts of them, plus parts of 2 other oblasts in mock referendums that nobody recognizes. There is no defense, it’s a land grab and a clumsy one at that.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

can you see how if you were living in those cities and multiple peace treaties were violated, that you might prefer joining the larger power that speaks your language to remaining at the mercy of death squads that howl for your blood?

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

If you speak russian and you want to move to russia and you like daddy putin’s policies, you always could join Russia: they’ll give you a passport and welcome you with open arms, nobody is stopping you, they have plenty of space and can use the manpower.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

why is “leave the place you and yours have lived for countless generations” a preferable option to you? would you see it the same way if this were the choice offered to your city?

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

That’s a great thought process, instead of emigrating from Ireland to the UK, ask the UK to invade Ireland so you don’t have to move and can live with your English buddies. Wtf. Respect borders, move if your country allegiance changes

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

lmao taking the side of the Brits over the IRA is a fucking amazing take. Tiocfaidh ár lá

PipedLinkBot ,

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): piped.video/watch?v=S7woEXovruc

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

it is, isn’t it? That’s what russian speakers are doing, this just keeps getting better and better.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

it’s literally the opposite. they’re in the position of Northern Ireland, in this analogy.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Nah, I was talking about Ireland, the country.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

it’s a real conflict you knob. the actual history is exactly the opposite and it’s a great fucking analogy that’s going straight over your head.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yes, but why cant some dude in Ireland call up his English friends to add bits of Ireland to Northern Ireland? The possibilities are endless without borders just the way putin likes. Or maybe Switzerland or Belgium can join France…I can just keep listing countries that speak the same language as their neighbour that could be invaded to “save the speakers”. Hitler invaded Poland on that pretext too, it’s super versatile.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

mate, the Brits literally colonized Ireland and the actual direction people want to go is towards Ireland. there was a real reuinfication conflict. posing a ahistorical hypothetical that’s precisely the opposite of the actual lived reality is fucking hilarious. what you’re saying effectively amounts to “if the Irish in Northern Ireland want to join Ireland so badly, why don’t they simply move there”, which is fucking insane and precisely the point I’ve been making for a half dozen comments.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

THis probably isn’t worth it. Gsus is either taking the piss or not clever or knowledgeable enough to follow you.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

I know, I’m just amused by the very-intelligent takes

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

You can twist my careless example of a translinguistic border in every direction to represent what you want, apparently in this case you’re making Ireland to be russia here, but I can say the UK represents russia…which is still different from:

Ukraine was already independent in 1993 without DNRs+LPRs and there was a referendum which settled the matter according to russia too, only for russia to come back 20 years later for Crimea and then for the Donbas by force.

If you want to be russian after 20 years of settled internationally recognized borders and peace, you can move there, because that’s not how borders or international law work.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

I’m pointing out the similarities with a group that shares language and culture with the parent nation wishing to rejoin the parent nation. those borders have also been “settled”. and yet the only conscionable choice is to support the separarists. the other poster is right, you are too dense to understand history and its lessons.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Why do you think a nation, any nation, would give up a strategic port and major naval facility to it’s enemies without a fight?

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

And, again, are you suggesting the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, who have lived their for at least decades, should have fled the country when the coup Rada declared their language illegal?

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

What are you even on, dude? There wasn’t hard border between Russia and Ukraine for Ukraine’s entire existence as a state until the destruction of the USSR. People should flee when their own country decides to kill them? That is actual, real, literal ethnic cleansing and/or genocide?

Are you seriously saying that all the Russian speaking Ukrainians should have fled Ukraine when the Rada started sending death squads in to the Donbass? Are you really saying that?:

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Pro-ethnic cleansing apologia from feddit dot nl

NoGodsNoMasters ,

They aren’t independent republics anymore, they’ve been annexed by the Russian Federation

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

sure but forgetting the historical context just provides justification for NATO aggression

NoGodsNoMasters ,

Sure, I just thought it was a difference worth noting

MoreAmphibians ,

The UN was absolutely useless at peacekeeping in Ukraine from 2014-2022. Why would they suddenly become competent now? Ukraine would just keep shelling those territories (now with cluster munitions) and would invade them if Russia pulled it’s military back.

And if you try and say that Ukraine wouldn’t dare do that because it would be against “international law” I’ll remind you that Ukraine had absolutely no problem violating the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine just kept violating those agreements by shelling the Donbas for 8 years without suffering any consequences until Russia invaded.

eran_morad ,

Who the fuck is threatening russia? It’s all imagined bullshit.

Landrin201 ,
@Landrin201@lemmy.ml avatar

If a coup happened tomorrow in Canada and the new government was suddenly allying itself with China and asking for Chinese military bases to be placed along the border with the US I guarantee that America would invade Canada within the year to “protect itself” against the “Chinese invasion.”

When you’re a country on the other side of the world and you’re trying to put troops in place to surround a country you’ve arbitrarily decided is your “enemy” then that’s a clear, open threat.

Would you have believed Russia saying that their troop buildup on the border of Ukraine in 2021 was “defensive?” If not why would you expect Russia to believe the same of nato? Russia at the time was claiming there was no intent to invade, just like NATO does.

diffuselight ,

You forgot the part where the Us first needs to annex Quebec a few years earlier.

eran_morad , (edited )

Russia has a long history of invading its European neighbors and an unabashed imperial ambition (pathetic shithole though it is). When was the last time a nato country attacked russia? Edit: you gonna answer the question, or just downvote like a bitch?

kbotc ,

When you’re a country on the other side of the world and you’re trying to put troops in place to surround a country you’ve arbitrarily decided is your “enemy” then that’s a clear, open threat.

The US already had bases closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than Ukraine! As soon as Russia invaded Crimea, the US stationed a shitload of troops in the Baltic states that are part of NATO. Every part of Ukraine’s further from Russia’s center of power as compared to the deployments of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

There’s not a damn thing that Ukraine would do to benefit the US militarily other than securing non-Russian nuclear plants to provide power to the EU. Russia is going after a war of retribution and hydrocarbon imperialism for leaving it’s sphere of influence.

diffuselight ,

Nuclear Arms. The ones they accepted from Ukraine in return for security guarantees. Which they violated when they took Crimea already.

How on your mind do you think attacking Ukraine guaranteed their security? Like how was that a “oh this will make us more secure move” By driving all other Neighbors into NAtOs nuclear shields ?

That’s big brain energy right now. I’m afraid of the entire neighborhood, especially the guy next door who gave me their shotgun in exchange for safety 2 decades ago , let me rape their wife and abduct their children and annex their house, that’ll show the neighborhood, especially if I manage to show that I barely can take the front lawn before getting spanked.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

International law is when you support a government coup to replace the pro-Russia government with a pro-EU/pro-NATO government.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

International law is when russia does not annex Crimea because of the unfavourable internal affairs of its neighbour. You know, your power ends at “these” borders and from there to here you can’t threaten the Ukrainian President.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

The coup government illegally removed the previous president, so they don’t get to complain when Crimea illegally votes to join Russia.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yea, well, did you hear about how the President escaped and the Parliament voted to destitute him. And when you invade Crimea to do a mock referendum, that’s awesome international law. Not even Iran and China recognize the annexation of Crimea, because you can’t invade a country and referendum an annexation unilaterally.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

The parliament had no constitutional authority to vote to expell him without an impeachment hearing, which he never got. It was an illegal move.

The referendum in Crimea is as legitimate as the acting president of Ukraine.

kmkz_ninja ,

And tankies love it when America invades another country because that country didn’t democracy correctly.

queermunist , (edited )
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

I don’t support Russia invading, just so we’re clear. I can just see the rational progression of events from A to Z

Why do you think Russia invaded? Cuz Russia bad? lol

Ukraine is literally on Russia’s boarder, and Russia is not even a regional empire - it’s a jumped up gas station. Russia is vulnerable and knows it, so it lashes out like any animal backed into a corner. Now we have another forever war, this time in Europe.

kbotc ,

I don’t support Russia invading, just so we’re clear.

Then why are you using Russia’s talking points?

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Do you agree there is a difference between “reasons” and “justifications”?

I think Russia’s reasons for invading are real and must acknowledged to end the war. I don’t think those reasons justify the war.

Get it?

kbotc ,

“I think the US’s reasons for invading Iraq are real and must be acknowledged to end the war.”

Does that clarify what I’m talking about to you at all?

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

The US’s reasons for invading Iraq weren’t fucking real. They made it all up!

Does that clarify what I’m talking about to you at all?

kbotc ,

Yes, and that’s exactly the point I was making about Russia’s reasons. The NATO already had troops in all of the Baltics following the invasion of Crimea. (Look up Operation Atlantic Resolve) Every single US troop there was already closer to Moscow than any potential Ukrainian base could ever possibly hope to be.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

You’re skipping some parts of the history. Before Operation Atlantic Resolve, there was the illegal removal of the previous anti-NATO president and the installation of a pro-NATO president, and that was the trigger for the invasion of Crimea and the illegal referendum to annex the territory in the first place. If you care to look, there’s a pretty clear through-line of tit-for-tat that keeps happening.

kbotc ,

You keep skipping parts of the history. You bring up that Viktor Yanukovych’s removal was illegal and not that the court’s removal of the 2004 amendments were, themselves, illegal. (Somehow the people who were supposed to implement the constitution were above it?) or that the president went against the Legislature’s will by denying the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, which again, they had a right to write and approve the treaty…

queermunist , (edited )
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Was the court striking down those amendments unconstitutional? I’m under the impression that’s a power that’s granted to them and not really able to find proof that it was an illegal move. Can I get a cite for that? I’m seeing political opponents of the move saying that, but not any unbiased sources. This article from the Kyiv Post mentions a member of an opposition party’s opinion, but that’s it.

EDIT Although reading the Venice Commission, I’m getting the impression Ukraine’s constitutional court is a clown show. Maybe it was illegal, maybe not, who knows! It seems the Court’s authority isn’t clearly defined. As someone from America, that sure fucking sounds familiar!

FluffyPotato ,

If by illegally remove you mean he was passing laws that would have made him a defacto dictator which in turn triggered protests that he violently put down triggering massive protests causing him to flee then yes.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

I mean literally, they removed him without following the constitutional process. They just kinda did it - hence, a coup.

FluffyPotato ,

He was literally voted out by their parlament by like 300 to 0 votes and the only country calling it a coup was Russia.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

So? It was still an illegal move by their parliament - he wasn’t formally impeached. That’d be like the American House and Senate voting to remove the President without having impeachment proceedings. It doesn’t matter how overwhelming the majority is, the constitution is still supposed to be a legal document that hast to be followed.

Also iirc the reason there were 0 votes against is because 170 abstained from the vote, because it was illegal.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Most of the people living in Crimea work for the Russian Black Sea Fleet you dork. They didn’t have to invade Crimea, they already had a huge military instalation there. And no one cares about international law, least of all NATO.

Also Crimea has been trying to get autonomy or leave Ukraine for thirty years.

Grosboel , (edited )

Ah yes, the revolution to overthrow the Russian puppet who gave the government dictatorial powers so that it could arrest anyone they wanted for years at a time without a trial, was a bad thing.

I think they just should’ve accepted their fate while their country became a dictatorial hell hole.

Bro, you’re just straight up evil.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Revolutions are illegal 🙄

redtea ,

The US isn’t making it much harder, it’s making it pay.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Indeed, making russia pay for trying to conquer a sovereign country by helping that country defend itself.

redtea ,

This is a little ahistorical.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Wouldn’t happen if you didn’t try to conquer countries

redtea ,

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

StalinwasaGryffindor ,

Oh my god, nobody gives a fuck about international law. It’s a meaningless term used to sling attacks at your geopolitical enemies. Just look at Guantanamo bay, where Americans are torturing people that have never even faced a military tribunal for over two decades! In an illegal occupation of Cuban land!

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yea, like Sevastopol

StalinwasaGryffindor ,

Yes, the brutal hard truth is if your country is neighbor to a much more powerful country than you will be forced to make concessions to that country. Else you will get couped, invaded, have your leaders assisted or be put under crippling economic blockades. Russia sucks but any state in the world would do the same to prevent giving their enemies an easy point of invasion

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Cool, rule by the strong and powerful, acquiescence by the weak is a great take by a leftist, but whatever, I don’t care, I’m done here, please stop writing.

StalinwasaGryffindor ,

I’m not saying any of this is good. It is reality however

Lodra , (edited )
@Lodra@programming.dev avatar

Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.

Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine? What opinion are they not going to change?

ennemi ,

Because the reasons to support Ukraine are supposed to be noble and not completely self-interested. That’s why there is popular support for it. McConnell admitting that it’s about funneling money into the military industrial complex, at least in part, ought to make at least some people reconsider their assumptions

Lodra ,
@Lodra@programming.dev avatar

Ah I see now. It’s about the motivations behind the support. Thanks for the insight!

It’s actually quite interesting. Personally, I try to remain neutral on politics but I’m definitely fed a left-leaning social media diet. Within that content, the general reason to support Ukraine is still self centered. “Go beat up the Russian military because they’re the bad guys and our cost is super low.” The nobility of this support feels like a happy side effect. But the really interesting part is that “funneling money into the military industrial complex” simply isn’t focused at all. This is the first time I’ve considered that aspect.

ennemi , (edited )

You don’t need to go super far left to find convincing arguments against US foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual after all, and he coined the phrase “consent manufacturing”.

The idea that the US acts in total self interest should be presumed true in all cases, but that doesn’t on its own defeat the idea that its intervention in Ukraine is good. The logical next step is to ask ourselves whether this intervention ever had any chance of changing the outcome of the conflict at all. If it didn’t, and most people here would agree that it didn’t, then the US’ involvement amounts to wartime profiteering at the cost of human lives.

edit: I should also add, there’s good reason to believe that NATO expansion is what caused the conflict, and that the west did this in spite of clear and explicit warnings from Russia

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

neutral on politics

Yeah… About that. There is no neutrality in politics.

Why don’t you go look up what the US and Saudi did to Yemen over the last decade and decide how you feel about sitting on that fence.

Go beat up the Russian military because they’re the bad guys and our cost is super low.

They’re not beating up the Russian military. They’re fertilizing the fields of Ukraine that the Rada is going to sell to Blackrock. There’s nothing noble about this. NATO pushed and pushed and pushed until the RF took the bait, and now they’re bleeding the RF using Ukrainians because they don’t give a shit about Ukrainians. Christ this is so frustrating ISTG if people would just read Sun Tzu they’d understand everything and we wouldn’t need to have these absurd conversations over and over.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Opposed? Liberals are fully on board with endless war in Ukraine. It’s a bipartisan consensus.

Lodra ,
@Lodra@programming.dev avatar

Ya that’s my understanding was well. Which is why I asked the question.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

Your question was: Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine?

The answer is no. I dunno what to tell you.

redtea ,

This thread is evidence of it. The quiet part gets shouted and rather than accepting that this is what MLs have been saying for two years, the libs are doubling down. Will they now accept the truth behind the quip, ‘To the last Ukrainian?’ Not a chance. Oblivious.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Liberals are just as bloodthirsty as their fashy counterparts, they just need to have their own slightly different words for why it is okay.

It took like 6 months for mainstream liberals to feel 100% comfortable thinking of Russians as subhuman monsters deserving of any and all violence, dredging up old-school orientalist tropes, and celebrating snuff videos, making special exception for them so long as they are accompanied by a little story about how it’s happening to Russians. A random Russian civilian got attacked by a shark in Egypy and liberals were rah-rahing for the shark.

Liberals will be pro-war until their corporate masters tell them not to be. Then, like with Iraq, they might pretend they werw anti-war the whole time.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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

forcequit ,

gottem

bitsplease ,

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

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

You should do more listening to hexbears because that sounds nothing like us.

bitsplease ,

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.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

I don’t see any of that, personally.

Any chance the liberal in your head is editoriakizing some straw men?

VentraSqwal ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

Russia does not want that. That’s the answer.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

MoreAmphibians ,

Ukraine dragged one of their own negotiators into the street and shot him in the head.

FluffyPotato ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
  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.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

You’re also losing the plot if you think, “Russia has more Nazis” is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.

Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don’t matter. This isn’t model UN or debate club, it’s powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. “Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas” is a reasonable starting ask.

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.

Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn’t threatening anyone, it was undergoing “shock therapy”, getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.

NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it’s always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.

And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable

Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

This doesn’t counter what I said at all.

UA isn’t joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I’ve argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).

One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.

They may now, depending on how the war goes.

Delusional.

No idea what these points are other than just lies.

They’re a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn’t have expected “disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos” to be something you’d oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I’m confident you were unaware of basically everything I’ve told you given the babytime propaganda stories you’ve been telling me. You’re welcome!

Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn’t now.

It absolutely does. UA doesn’t even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in “the counteroffensive” has been such a completr failure. No air support.

Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

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.

I know you don’t. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it’s very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you’ve never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it’s currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

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.

Sounds like you haven’t heard the recording or you wouldn’t be saying such nonsense.

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

Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or “bad” countries get.

Anyways, you should research better. Here’s a starting point: the National Druzhina.

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.

You’d guess wrong and I think you’re projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

FluffyPotato ,

If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it’s quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive. Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

Also if you want to compare numbers: highest estimate of Azov brigade was 2500, highest for Wagner was 50000. Wagner also got mostly incorporated into the Russian military.

The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO. Thankfully Russia seems to have run out of equipment to annoy us and this stopped completely halfway into it’s war with Ukraine.

If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others. You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it’s quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

You’re not listening. I’ve already told you, explicitly, twice why RF is making that demand, and neither time was it, “well they just don’t like Nazis”.

Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

Right sector and its offshoots are very powerful in the military and the military is calling a lot of the shots.

Also, have you noticed how hard it is to find pictures of UA soldiers without either a Wolfangel or a Right Sector reference? Probably not because I am not convinced you read anything about this topic, but… it’s surprisingly difficult.

And again, it doesn’t matter if Russia did it too or does it more or whatever impetus is making you try to find these facile gotcha moments. I’m not the Russian state and I don’t care if a nation-state are hypocrites in rhetoric or whatever (though RF didn’t incorporate a Nazi regiment into their armed forces, so there’s that).

In terms of negotiation demands being reasonable, all that matters is whether the material ask is directly addressing the grievance and would support peace. This does both.

Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive.

Azov was significantly weakened in Mariupol and UA didn’t retake that city. They still have a large presence, as an official part of the UA armed forces, in Lviv, Kyiv, Odessa, and distributed near the front. They still appear in an inordinate number of press photos and stories, which speaks to their privileged status.

Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

You got the order wrong.

The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO.

Given your comfort with saying things you don’t know, I won’t take your word for it on the exact frequency of military exercises. But I will point out that NATO itself has carried out more and greater aggressions, and ceased to have any ostensible purpose after the fall of the USSR. Mask off, it continued under its actual goal of furthering the interests of US imperialism, which Baltic countries happily oblige.

If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others.

Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya are the most notable.

You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure.

This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

You have been wrong about nearly everything you’ve said, even just simple facts. Now you want an excuse to leave rather than just doing it - ah, my information is just “Russian” (nearly everything I’ve said comes from Western and Ukrainian sources).

How pitiful.

FluffyPotato ,

Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there’s an essay for each point. Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

And then there’s the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to, Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war, Ukraine military is run by nazies, NATO members join by being threatened by NATO. There are probably others I’m forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I’m not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there’s an essay for each point.

Interesting that you proved none of them wrong and just said made-up nonsense in response then, isn’t it?

Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

And now you’re just lying. So pitiful.

Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

You are 100% incorrect and I invite you to spend literally any amount of time learning about NATO’s involvement in both Libya and Afghanistan. If you were a student I’d having a talk with your parents because you keep making things up rather than reading and learning.

Maybe you don’t know how to find information? Put the words “Libya” “NATO” and “bomb”, read the results, ask yourself if NATO was defending lol.

And then there’s the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to

Yes obviously. Only gullible people think otherwise. Military folks expected RF to immediately curbstomp Ukraine because they thought RF would use the tactics of, dare I say, NATO countries and just bomb everything war crimes style. RF chose a very different tactic. I know you don’t know why they did that, but you should do yourself a favor and read about it.

Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war

A basic fact. RF bombed UA airfields right off the bat and UA has had very little air presence while RF does basically whatever it wants outside of manpad resustence. You are free to go spend any amount of time learning these basic facts.

Ukraine military is run by nazies

Actually I didn’t say that, though you csn tell the military is run by people in that neighborhood based on their statements. Remember when the UA MoD endorsed calling Chechens orcs and dipping bullets in lard? Of course you don’t, you haven’t paid attention. But you are free to review the extent to which Nazis have been incorporated into UA’s military both formally and informally.

NATO members join by being threatened by NATO.

I didn’t say that either. In UA’s case it was less a threat than a coup, though UA isn’t joining NATO soon anyways.

There are probably others I’m forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I’m not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

And now we return to your habit of, “everything I don’t know is Russian propaganda”. Like I said before, my sources are Western and Ukrainian. At no point in this conversation have you asked a question, sought information, or demonstrated knowledge of anything I’m talking about. But you have repeated some confused poorly-remembered talking points and seem to be very comfortable with lying when you don’t know something.

Work on that, buddy. I don’t think I should have to tell you that lying is bad.

FluffyPotato ,

Just another essay straight from RT. I’m as interested of learning about Russia from tankies as I am about learning of the holocaust from neonazies.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Ask your mommy if lying is bad

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Baltic double-Holocaust! Bingo!

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

They’re Estonian. It’s pointless.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

lol

freagle ,

This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure

With depleted uranium bombs, no less!

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Here in Estonia

There it is!

You should have just lead with that.

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Fascism is just an offshoot of liberalism so this isn’t a zinger

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

You definitely tell stories and deflect and make guesses but present them as if they’re fact so gonna disagree with you, champ

Russia didn’t invade Crimea and then the Donbas region in 2014 because of Nazis.

Yeah duh, or at least not proximally or the exact Nazis being referred to. This feels like saying things just to feel like you’re lecturing but it doesn’t mean anything. The next two paragraphs don’t address what I said or answer my question.

But yes, Ukraine had “nazis”, but so did Russia.

Cool, what impact does that have re: Russia’s demand? It’s a pretty liberal thing to try to come up with pointless gotchas or like entire states are hypocritical or something so you don’t need to look any deeper. Are you able to provide even the most basic explanation for why the RF would want UA to hand over/imprison their Nazis?

I recommend reading about people like Aleksandr Dugin

Ahahahahahahaha

I guess we need to invade Russia, right?

Already did. First in 1918, then in the early 90s (it was called the shock doctrine).

Anyways, you seem to again be arguing with some liberal in your head that bases everything on abstract rules and gotchas. Has nothing to do with me or anything I’ve said.

Also, in 2019 the far-right party (Svoboda) received 2.16% of the votes in the whole country. Not even 3%.

Congratulations you’ve caught up with liberal arguments from 2022. It is, in fact, peak liberalism to think that election results are the same as political power, or power in general. I’m sure the Roma murdered in tacitly state-supported pogroms are delighted to know Svoboda only got a few percent in an election.

Anyways, you failed to answer my question. I’m not even a tough grader. Just looking for very basic material context, and you couldn’t do it. I even gave you a hint!

If that’s the case, then Putin must be part of the conspiracy?

This makes no sense.

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”.

This is a form of liberalism called idealism, and it’s as hilarious as it is wrong. People just got together, for no clear reason, and thought a bunch until change happened. Actually don’t mention “for no clear reason”, because this begins the thought of, “well why would I need to think about material causes?”, which puts you into dangerous territory of reading or understanding something before having an opinion on it. Best to just make shit up and have little cartoon characters voice your opinions and tell little stories, right?

Of course my lIbErAl mind is too dumb to understand high level politics like you do

You are perfectly capable of understanding anything I’ve mentioned. You’re unwilling and uninterested, and are a victim of propaganda and your society. If you chose honesty, things would go a lot better, but you so far you seem unable to drop the habit of making things up to fill in the gaps. Very defensive behavior, which is typical for Reddit-brained liberlaism.

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.

Reading Putin and extracting value from it requires already knowing all of the things he mentions, as he is just a singular politician struggling in his own interest, attempting to make very particular cases to very particular audiences. I am… dubious that any of that happened here.

What lead to the change in Ukraine’s political class? Other than Yanukovych’s reversal and people getting pissed? I don’t know.

You skimmed all of that and failed to notice the coup, lol.

I’m curious, that’s why I sometimes actually read what Mr Putin says

Your behavior says the exact opposite

To know the real answers you can’t filter out everything that doesn’t fit your view.

Ahahahahahahaha

My apologies, let me make it easier for you

See the gears turning. You’ve been criticized! What to say in response? Hmm… well this Maoo jerk just said you used simplistic examples because you can’t understand what’s happening on the planet due to ignorance and worldview. That’s a meany thing to say! Better turn to… uh… condescension? Yeah, and say “I’ll make it simpler”! That’ll get 'em!

Because I probably do have to spell it out: I said you were being simplistic. Making it simpler is dunking on yourself.

Russia, which is not governed by morons, decided to invade Ukraine to accomplish certain objectives.

You jumped into this thread to flail around because you didn’t understand what those were, and continue to miss the most basic points made about them, lol. No wonder this is left vague.

They knew what they were doing, you don’t need to make excuses up to defend their actions.

Now you’re doing the “I’m rubber you’re glue” thing. Amazing how contradiction brings out the inner child in liberals.

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.

Who are the “they”? Be specific. This will help you on your journey on learning how to know things.

No, Russia didn’t have to invade.

According to what logic? Who makes any country invade another? This type of thinking isn’t even appropriate for the category of thing we’re talking about. I’m giving you baby’s first realpolitik here and nothing is sinking in.

No, Ukraine wasn’t going to invade Russia

lol who on earth are you talking to? Do you think I said anything like that? If not, tell me who you’re talking to. Be specific. Does the person in your head saying these things look like a muppet? Did you win your argument with them?

And no, there’s no way in hell 2014 Ukraine was going to join NATO (they’ve been trying since the early 2000’s…).

UA isn’t joining NATO in the near term either. If you stopped making shit up and asked questions or read things, you might say things that are germane to this conversation.

Anyway, if you want to support them, then fine.

Liberal brain strikes again. Good guys vs. bad guys. If you criticize me, you must support the bad guys. I have a big brain.

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.

Now we’ve graduated to the “lying their ass off” portion of disagreeing with a liberal.

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.

Ah yes, that’s the thing we’re talking about: whether or not you support Russia invading Ukraine.

maegul ,
@maegul@lemmy.ml avatar

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?

dumpster_dove ,
@dumpster_dove@hexbear.net avatar

Upholding the Minsk agreement would have been an option up until 2022 at least.

boredtortoise ,

It’s tough to hold an agreement as the only participant

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

by all accounts, Russia held to the letter of that agreement until it was violated. what on earth are you talking about.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

I think they made several attempts to keep it intact, but Ukraine couldn’t keep it’s pet Nazis under control and they kept violating the cease fire.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Christ sake. France and Germany are both on the record saying they never intended to honor the agreement and were just playing for time to arm Ukraine.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

???

AssortedBiscuits ,
@AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@maegul@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

wrath-sedan ,
@wrath-sedan@kbin.social avatar

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.

socsa ,

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.

brain_in_a_box ,

Trying to rob the word genocide of all meaning in the way your doing serves only to trivialise actual genocide.

socsa ,

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

brain_in_a_box ,

Pop quiz, without researching, what was the bloodiest genocide last year?

socsa ,

When you’ve lost the plot, deflect

brain_in_a_box ,

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 ,

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.

brain_in_a_box , (edited )

It was absolutely that you couldn’t answer the question; you know it, I know it, and everyone reading this knows it.

Just like you also know that trying to tar anyone who doesn’t believe any and all accusations of genocide, no matter how obviously bad faith, as a genocide denier is an obviously cynical and disingenuous rhetorical technique that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and which you wouldn’t be willing to be subject to yourself. Do you believe the claims of Donbas genocide? How about white farmer genocide in South Africa? How about White Genocide in America?

Nobody cares if you made up some stupid little name for it like whataboutism and declared it against the ‘rules’. We’re still going to point your obvious double standards as proof of your dishonesty

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

China

Oh my fucking god the UN report came out A YEAR AGO. READ THE UN REPORT.

www.ohchr.org/…/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

How many people have been killed in the supposedly ongoing genocide in China?

You do have a properly sourced number, right?

So let’s see it.

barrbaric ,

Yemen?

brain_in_a_box ,

Tigray

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

removing children from a warzone isn’t forced deportation. those kids were returned when requested.

Flaps ,

‘Put the children back in the warzone! rage-cryAlso 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.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

You should be angry at the propagandists that made you selectively trivialize genocide this way.

mim ,

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 ,
@Rom@hexbear.net avatar

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

timespace ,

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

postmeridiem ,
@postmeridiem@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz avatar

Avengers theme plays

sab ,

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.

dakar ,
@dakar@kbin.social avatar

The White House must be angry libs on lemmy then.

Milan ,

They’re angry libs, yes.

EnderWi99in ,

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.

vegai ,

Imagine thinking that “liberal” is a slur.

JuryNullification ,

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

barrbaric ,

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.

Alto ,
@Alto@kbin.social avatar

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

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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.

barrbaric ,

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 , (edited )

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 ,
@Marxine@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

xNIBx ,

Did the US deploy military troops in Brazil?

Marxine ,
@Marxine@lemmy.ml avatar

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 ,

It's not semantics. True, you can overthrow a government without a military invasion but doing a military invasion is much more serious and more "bad". My point is that the US hasnt recently done the "more bad" thing(except for Libya but not even Russia gave a fuck about that), while Russia is actively doing the "more bad" thing.

The expanding of NATO depends on democratically elected governments of sovereign countries choosing to join an alliance. NATO didnt roll tanks over those countries forcing them to join NATO. If NATO did that, i would agree that it would be a very bad thing.

There are a lot of degrees of interactions between countries. Soft power, hard power, hybrid warfare, etc. Not all of them are equal or destructive. Just because Russia is currently doing the worst kind of interaction(invasion), you cant equate all negative interactions between countries to rationalize "but all countries are doing bad stuff".

Russia had very little soft power and with this invasion, they wasted large chunks of it. They proved to everyone that ultimately, they are willing to use military force to achieve their objectives. The fact that the US did/does it, doesnt justify it. Both sides can be bad and in this specific situation, one side is clearly in the wrong while the other side is supporting the "good" side(for their own reasons).

Do you not think that we should respect country borders and their governments, especially when they are democratically elected? The whole "it was a coup, thats how Zelensky got elected" is bullshit that was started by Russia AFTER the invasion.

I went back and checked the russian statements after the latest ukranian elections, where the actual antirussian candidate(Poroshenko) had lost. The Kremlin was tendative but hopeful since their main "bad guy" had lost. Kremlin didnt say anything about staged elections, didnt say anything about CIA conspiracy to elect Zelensky or anything like that. Kremlin was "well, at least that asshole(Poroshenko) lost, maybe we can find some common ground with Zelensky".

But Russia lacked the soft power to do that. So they overplayed their hand and used hard power to achieve it.

the USA deployed troops for a “joint training” with Brazilian troops during (far-right USA backed) Bolsonaro’s government.

I mean the US is training people from other countries and when it comes to Latin America, those people are usually far right. Is this a good thing? No. But this isnt as bad as invading a country. Again, it is a spectrum. There is a difference between Russia training for example people from Donbas(bad), or giving them Buk missiles(more bad) or straight up invading(most bad) or straight up going after Ukraine's capital instead of just liberating/securing the separatist regions(you have gone full disney bad guy).

This is what i am talking about Russia overplaying their hand. You cant really talk about "protecting the people of Donbas", when you are literally speed marching(literally airlifting and dropping) to Kiev. You dont give a fuck about Donbas, you just want a regime change(through violence, against the democratic results) in Ukraine.

postmeridiem ,
@postmeridiem@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz avatar

The last coup was Bolivia in 2019, unless we’re doing the old it’s not true because it hasn’t been declassified yet shtick

xNIBx ,

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?

postmeridiem ,
@postmeridiem@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz avatar

You know exactly what someone means when they say the US did a coup, stop playing dumb.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

So just to reiterate, you are okay with America invading Mexico to enforce its will on them?

Pili ,

Half of Mexico is still under US military occupation, they already have a buffer zone between them.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@kbin.social avatar

Mate, it’s not hard.

It’s a yes or no question.

Pili ,

Your question wasn’t for me. And no, USA should give back all the land they stole from Mexico. And until they do that, it’s ridiculous for them to expect Russia to return land that’s populated with Russian ethnics to a fascists state that tried to exterminate them before the war.

MultigrainCerealista ,

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 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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 ,

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 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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.

MultigrainCerealista ,

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.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Well, the weapons are still in Cuba, thank god :) and Cuba has an air force, which I suppose was given/sold to Cuba by the USSR/China, so maybe the US can also give some F16 to Ukraine. The USSR also sent planes and soviet crews to fight the Americans in Vietnam, so there is precedent for all that.

NATO is hostile to russia’s imperial ambitions and so are all of its neighbours.

MultigrainCerealista ,

What are you talking about? The Cuban missile crisis was resolved by the missiles being removed and the soviet military presence ended in Cuba.

You’re factually wrong when you seem to say the soviet missiles are still there. They were removed.

The US’s security interests demanded they were removed from the nearby Cuba, and US missiles that threatened the USSR were removed from Turkey.

Peace was achieved by withdrawing the military threat from each others borders.

Likewise peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if Russia doesn’t feel threatened by a NATO presence there.

It’s easy to understand.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

m.youtube.com/watch?v=m7MZs-QdrFI

PipedLinkBot ,

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): piped.video/watch?v=m7MZs-QdrFI

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

MultigrainCerealista ,

Yes at one point Putin sought to join NATO and the idea didn’t gain traction.

I don’t understand how you feel this helps your argument.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Yeah, Putin wanted in but NATO said no… because the purpose of NATO is to subjugate and pillage Russia.

GarbageShoot ,

Well, the weapons are still in Cuba

Cuba still has weapons at all, but the crisis was over the nuclear missiles, which were removed. It’s a very direct comparison here.

Landrin201 ,
@Landrin201@lemmy.ml avatar

Also we have been punishing Cuba with an embargo which has crippled their economy ever since just because we can.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

NATO is not hostile to russia

michael-laugh

duderium ,

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 😉

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

NATO and BRICS are just not comparable? Like… they’re both acronyms I guess.

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

?

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 ,
@PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net avatar

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

boredtortoise ,

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

barrbaric ,

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?

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

timespace ,

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 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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 ,

It’s actually appalling how much seething hate they have towards communists

sol ,

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 ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

boredtortoise ,

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 ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

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.

boredtortoise , (edited )

Yes. We don’t need entertain such ideas from who have them

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

engage with people as people and acknowledge that they very frequently have needs, wants, and desires that cut against your myopic worldview.

boredtortoise ,

Exactly, that’s what I’m saying

(*Some people’s myopic worldview)

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

should I take this to mean you recant your earlier statement about the Ukranian separatists being plants?

boredtortoise ,

We shouldn’t entertain myopic worldviews like everyone is a plant even though we know of some

We can assume good out of most and be critical of bullshit. Also helpful advice for avoiding misunderstandings :)

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

I’ll take that as a no. expecting liberals to refrain from dehumanizing people is just too much, I guess.

boredtortoise ,

Check my edit. It seems you are misunderstanding or assuming something others can’t know about

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

And we know that the separatist fascists are Russian plants.

this you?

boredtortoise ,

engage with people as people and acknowledge that they very frequently have needs, wants, and desires that cut against your myopic worldview.

I’ll take that as a no. expecting liberals to refrain from dehumanizing people is just too much, I guess.

This you?

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

yeah, I suggested you do that and got no response. I stand by it.

boredtortoise ,

Sure! That kind of “rules for thee…” is not my type of way to live so we can leave this repertoire here

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

: |

That is certainly a take.

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

MoreAmphibians ,

I actually do not, tell me.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

MoreAmphibians ,

I didn’t realize that was the very first act of the Rada. I was thinking it was appointing Natalie Jaresko as finance minster. She was an American who became a Ukrainian citizen the same day she was appointed as finance minister. That happened a lot later than I thought though.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

boredtortoise ,

And it’s time to stop the invading shit

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Okay, and? Like… that’s… a nice sentiment, but that’s all it is.

boredtortoise ,

Yeah and? That’s what we can do on this platform. Comment on things

AssortedBiscuits ,
@AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net avatar

Putin isn’t going to end the invasion because some people from some obscure Reddit clone said so.

boredtortoise ,

Exactly

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

So then we agree, America must be defanged at all costs

boredtortoise ,

Somewhat true (all costs is a troublesome term), but also disregards the rest of the issue

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

It really doesn’t. American aggression is found around every corner if you look at thr history and impetus behind this conflict.

boredtortoise ,

American aggression is found around every corner if you look at thr history

True

impetus behind this conflict.

Ehhh

Kinda like this excuse back in the day

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

You’re not making any sense. Unless you think that NATO encirclement, the Maidan coup, etc, are all Russian false flags?

boredtortoise ,

Nope.

Instead Russia basically forced multiple countries to join a war crime organization so they have even some safety

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

… NATO has illegally invaded and destroyed numerous countries. Russia has invaded Georgia when Georgia tried to join NATO as part of NATO’s encirclement.

boredtortoise ,

Yes?

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

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.

boredtortoise ,

Yeah sounds good for it’s time. It seems both are becoming outdated to tell the big picture.

GarbageShoot ,

Was West Germany an imperial state?

navorth ,

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.

timespace ,

They can, because hexbear. They’re Russian apologists.

navorth ,

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 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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 :/

Bnova ,
@Bnova@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,
@Bnova@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@NPa@hexbear.net avatar

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.

navorth ,

Disappointing. The other Hexbear folk at least tried to have a discussion, you just show up with the old ‘everything left of my position is fascist’ argument, expecting what exactly?

commiewithoutorgans ,
@commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net avatar

No, a good understanding of fascism and imperialism includes understanding that countries at the periphery either find a way to do the imperialism to their east/south (geographically right now) or to their ethnic others within or be the ones consumed by it.

Poland got to join the imperialists, though with significant disadvantage of being at the behest of exploitation, in exchange for becoming the people who perform (at least partially) the expropriation towards he east at Russia/Belorussia/Ukraine. The ruling class of capitalists always takes this bargain as long as they continue to benefit

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Bro one of the Baltics is sueing holocaust survivors for trying to reclaim their property. Orban just straight is fascist. Poland has a reactionary right wing theocratic government that rather famously banned abortion. What do you want from us? If it looks like a goose and goosesteps like a goose. The reactionary right wing takeover of eastern europe is well documented. The spread of the double-holocaust narrative and it’s acceptance by the us and eu is well documented. The antisemitism, anti-lgbt violence, anti-romani violence, is all well documents. What do you want from us?

infuziSporg ,
@infuziSporg@hexbear.net avatar

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.

navorth ,

I live in eastern Europe, and I agree that the 90s and early 2000 sucked for us. Big time. My country government absolutely botched the transition to free market economy.

Still, I feel we traded stable but shit for volatile yet hopeful.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

there’s no way to sell public infrastructure to the highest bidder that won’t result in a massive drop in quality of life. it’s got very little to do with your government and entirely to do with the introduction of bourgeois rule.

navorth ,

I’d agree in a vacuum. Even though I’d prefer state owned stuff, quality of life does not depend solely on who owns the infrastructure.

Stuff we take for granted like buying food product at the deli (meat, cheese) required either being lucky, knowing the right people or having US dollars in your pocket.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

The only way the transition was “botched” was that the west wasn’t able to loot as much as they wanted.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Yeah, Russia had nukes. That’s the only thing that will stop NATO.

MoreAmphibians ,

Because the US starts color revolutions in those countries until a pro-western government is in power.

DivineChaos100 ,
@DivineChaos100@hexbear.net avatar

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

probably worth mentioning that I think he also couped the government to prevent the Communist party from being voted back in to power in I want to say '94.

PosadistInevitablity ,
@PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net avatar

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

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

non hostile sovereign state

: |

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

I meant pre 2014 conflict though.

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

the person you replied to was talking about the last 9 years

TheGamingLuddite ,

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.

hrw.org/…/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munition…

navorth ,

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 ,

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

large scale extermination operations.

How many people do you have to exterminate before it becomes bad?

Redcat , (edited )

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Oh I’d forgotten that Biden seized Afghanistan’s soveriegn wealth, causing a famine.

Redcat ,

That famine was an investment in democracy.

SeborrheicDermatitis ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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.

LordR ,

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.

Tigbitties ,
@Tigbitties@kbin.social avatar

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...

EmptySlime ,

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 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

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?

Klear ,

And here it is, perfect example.

False ,

Whataboutism

Jmdatcs ,

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.

EmptySlime ,

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.

Dagwood222 ,

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

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Órban still has fond memories of that…he was 7 in 1956, he probably remembers.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Which is funny, since crushing the revolt was the only reason it took people like Orban so long to regain power.

MultigrainCerealista ,

The Hungarian uprising was killing Jews in the street. It was anti-Semitic from the beginning and the “Jewish Bolshevik” idea from the Nazi era was a motivating factor with the fact several leaders of the Hungarian government were Jewish cited as a battle cry.

jta.org/…/1956-crises-decimated-two-communities

After the uprising, 200,000 Hungarian Jews fled the country fearing it signaled a return of the antisemitism of the recent Nazi-collaborationist regime of the 1940s.

Sending the tanks in to stop this was a good thing. It would have been better if the anti-Semitic uprising was stopped before the pogroms started.

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

Ok tankie

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Yup. Thankfully they were able to crush the revolt before the fascists were able to re-establish the Arrow Cross Party.

DivineChaos100 ,
@DivineChaos100@hexbear.net avatar

oh shit hexbearites are talking about hungary again, gotta ditch the thread lmao

RickyRigatoni ,
@RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s amazing how much they support imperialism when it’s “their people” doing it.

gnuhaut ,

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 ,

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.

gnuhaut ,

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 ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

ThereRisesARedStar ,

And east german lgbt rights and women’s rights lost half a century of progress during reunification.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

ThereRisesARedStar ,

Reading those east German men be like “yeah I prefer it now that women have to stay with me for economic reasons, before you had to be like, interesting and care about them or something” really drives it home in a different way too.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

That was physically painful when I first saw some of those quotes. We’ve just lost so much potential.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

mim ,

So, why didn’t Belarus improve at the same rate as the Baltic countries?

They both started from the bottom, right?

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

So, why didn’t Belarus improve at the same rate as the Baltic countries?

If you think that the answer to this is simply “because Russia bad” you have the mind of a child.

mim ,

Eastern European countries that opened to western trade and diplomatic relationships improved significantly.

Eastern European countries that became Russian puppets didn’t.

Explain that.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

Babybrain

came_apart_at_Kmart ,

imagine ignoring the absolutely ruthless, western led cannibalization of the former soviet union and pretending history’s baseline started AFTER the largest decline of living standards in global history.

human trafficking, prostitution, alcoholism, food/energy insecurity, diseases of despair all exploded when the west forced capitalism and privatization onto the former soviet union in the immediate aftermath. Gorbachev thought he was going to get some easy-going nordic social democracy, but instead the west carved up their public sector like a christmas ham. maybe you were too young, but in the 1980s the propaganda portrait the west had of russian women were all heavy-set, ugly babushkas. suddenly, after 1989, the mail order beautiful russian bride phenomenon exploded. they were fleeing the gutting of the public sector and the shattering of the social safety net, which made it near impossible to raise a family in the eastern bloc without becoming a sex worker.

the west sponsored every retrograde nationalist reactionary psycho to undermine any hint of democratic resistance to economic liberalization schemes and bombed the shit out of infrastructure (Yugoslavia) whenever they could get away with it. the west has the most blood on its hands for the aftermath of the USSR, but people like you want to ignore those early days and then claim credit for the “winners” the west propped up in the aftermath of all that chaos. like a killer who torched a town but kidnapped a few kids and now touts his heroic rescue of them. the most ignorant and disgusting take.

mim ,

You seem to be ignoring the fact that after the fall of the USSR, Russia didn’t want their assets to be sold or leased to western companies (understandably), so they let corrupt officials take them for pennies of what they were actually worth. Those officials became the oligarchs.

Russians cannibalised Russia.

came_apart_at_Kmart ,

the word you are striving not to say is capitalism. capitalists did this to russians, using the playbook developed and advocated for by western institutions.

ThereRisesARedStar ,

God you’re just… so fucking close to getting it.

What would have happened if instead of the Russian capitalists privatizing all the people’s assets the western capitalists did?

Do you think it wouldn’t just be western oligarchs cannibalizing Russia?

mim ,

And yet, tankies still defend this corrupt capitalist state just because it’s not the US.

Nevermind political persecution, assassinations, repression of LGBT people, invasion of neighbouring countries, etc. As long as it’s not the US, it’s all good.

ThereRisesARedStar ,

No, it isnt. We at hexbear say “the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union was the largest humanitarian disaster of the latter half of the twentieth century” and bemoan the loss for human rights(more notably for women, lgbt people, and ethnic minorities) caused by the destruction of the Eastern block.

What we say is that you have to look at the outcomes of weapon distribution by NATO to Ukraine.

Ukraine just wasted a lot of material on one last big push and they didn’t do squat. The Ukrainian state has exhausted its ability to conduct offensive operations, and attrition in both absolute quantity and in percentage has been on the Russian’s side since the second stage of the war, so what’s going to happen now is that Russia will slowly encroach on the rest of Ukraine until they meet their military and political objectives.

So, do we give them more weapons, make their losing war even bloodier for them and the Russians, or do we accept that they’ve lost, and stop giving the government more time to keep killing conscripts?

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

yes, capitalism is marked by class war, between the class who own things, and the class who labor. liberalizing the Soviet bloc destroyed the prospects of the working class.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

The Balts were immediately used as forward positions for NATO and were allowed to keep their state programs and industry. Belarus got the same treatment as Russia.

You should probably know the answer to your own snarky questions before you ask them.

mim ,

So, what you’re saying is that the countries that sided with the West got a better deal than the ones that became Russian puppets?

Flaps ,

When a country joins the western bloc, they join them.

When a country joins any other multinational pact, they’re puppets.

I’m not influenced by western propaganda

PosadistInevitablity ,
@PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net avatar

Two capitalist nations fucking over their subjects is not the own you think it is

renownedballoonthief ,

Have some compassion, some people just want to crank their knob to exploitative porn without questioning why so much of it comes from Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia.

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

Thank you for calling this out. It’s fucking gross how that happens. If I speak about what should happen to “sexpats”, I’ll be in trouble. Big big trouble.

renownedballoonthief ,

Feel like clawing your eyes out?

theguardian.com/…/ukrainian-refugees-increasingly…

DivineChaos100 ,
@DivineChaos100@hexbear.net avatar

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.

infuziSporg ,
@infuziSporg@hexbear.net avatar

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.

RickyRigatoni ,
@RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml avatar

Are these nazis in the room with us right now?

Quimby ,
@Quimby@hexbear.net avatar

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…?

ThereRisesARedStar ,

Don’t forget putting the OUN… er… ukrainian trident on that old monument.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

And the Blood and Soil flags that are very common.

ElChapoDeChapo ,
@ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net avatar

I mean you’re here so, kinda yeah

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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

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 ,

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 ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Read Settlers

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Siri, what’s imperialism?

RickyRigatoni ,
@RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml avatar

Yes, you really should ask her what imperialism is if you don’t think what Russia and China are doing is imperialism.

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

Siri please help the red fash tankies keep telling me to read Lenin.

DankXiaobong ,

Imperialism is when china and russia and the more china and russia the imperialister it is

Quimby ,
@Quimby@hexbear.net avatar

“And that’s all I have to say about that.” fedposting

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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 ,

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

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.

mim ,

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

So if the US has a fleet statinoned in another contry’s territory, should they just be allowed to take it?

Non-sequitor?

What don’t you follow?

Do you also support US-backed countries to take territory as they see fit? Or does that only apply to countries you like?

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?

A Russian-backed separatist group starts a conflict and Ukraine responds.

Does Ukraine not have the right to defend their territory?

Could I get a sticker instead?

You can get some crayons to munch on.

Bulma ,

Did the American-backed separatist group count in your brain too or the us backed razing of the USSR

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

You’re a very foolish person.

Redcat ,

Does Ukraine not have the right to defend their territory?

Do eastern ukrainians have a right not to be ethnically cleansed?

Commiejones ,
@Commiejones@hexbear.net avatar

Do eastern Ukrainians have a right to defend their own territory and invite guests to help?

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

Shit, if all you have to do is park a fleet at a region and it’s yours, I have been playing paradox games wrong this entire time

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

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.

This whole “unlike you tAnKiEs I have a job” thing just makes you look insecure and childish.

You know that, right?

Flyberius ,
@Flyberius@hexbear.net avatar

It really is the strangest appeal to authority I’ve ever seen.

Bulma ,

My ex father in law would always harp that he was more intelligent than my mom (he wasn’t) cus he had more jobs than her

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

jokey one-liners: you have no arguments rage-cry

well-reasoned point: I’m not reading all that, I have a job smuglord

CrispyFern ,
@CrispyFern@hexbear.net avatar

nonfalsofiable orthodoxy intensifies parenti-hands

Maoo ,
@Maoo@hexbear.net avatar

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.

DivineChaos100 ,
@DivineChaos100@hexbear.net avatar

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.

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

It’s crazy how quick they turn into Westworld robots, you can show them the most airtight, well-sourced case to counter their empty vibes-based conjecture and they’ll just go “That doesn’t look like anything.”

Flyberius ,
@Flyberius@hexbear.net avatar

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

GarbageShoot ,

reply with a wall of text

And here I thought that the classic tankie reply was low-effort trolling and shitposting. parenti-hands

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

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.

ElChapoDeChapo ,
@ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net avatar

stalin-smokin

ConsciousLochNess ,
@ConsciousLochNess@hexbear.net avatar

You know you’re dealing with a pro-NATO bot when they say stupid boomer jokes like “well I have a job to go to” data-laughing

Hi bot! 👋

mim ,

Hi first-world revolutionary LARPer. 👋

ConsciousLochNess ,
@ConsciousLochNess@hexbear.net avatar

Hello, World!

StalinwasaGryffindor ,

smuglord

Bulma ,

Eli5 that Pluto shit I toned out the Cave hard when I took a philosophy class

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/f231f7e0-b83c-443d-8413-f6fc36d7e036.jpeg

I found this funny and topical example.

Basically some dudes are tied up in a cave so they can only look forward. Behind them some other dude’s are making shadow puppets. The tied up dudes think the shadow puppets are the real world because they can’t look anywhere else and don’t think there is anything else. But then there’s something about if you’re skeptical you can escape the cave and see the real world outside.

Philosoraptor ,
@Philosoraptor@hexbear.net avatar

The second part is important too: when someone escapes the cave and sees the outside world for the first time, it’s painful because things are so bright. After a while, the escapee’s eyes adjust, and they come to see how much better and more real the outside world is. They decide to go back and free their friends in the cave. But when they descend back down, their friends make fun of them because they can’t see very well in the dark anymore and so aren’t very good at talking about the shadows. Their friends think that they are just making up a big story about some magical “outside world” to cover for how bad they’ve gotten at talking about the shadows.

aaaaaaadjsf , (edited )
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

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.

KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX ,
@KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX@lemmy.ml avatar

The west forced Ukraine to defend itself?

Were they supposed to welcome the Russians with open arms?

GarbageShoot ,

I believe they mean by continuously sabotaging peace accords and talks

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

Yeah exactly. What has Ukraine accomplished since the sabotaged peace talks by Boris Johnson? Is the territory gained vs Russia since then worth all the life lost, the economic cost, etc.

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

They were supposed to not ethnically cleanse Russian speaking people in the eastern provences for 8 years, repeatedly breaking treaties and making threats about hosting nuclear weapons for NATO.

And the US was supposed to not support a violent coup to overthrow the democratically elected government and replace it with a one aligned with the fascist militias they used in that coup.

If this had happened to a weastern ally we would be at war to liberate the entire country let alone protect the regions facing immediate violence.

rikudou ,

Well, those definitely are some words.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

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

Literally no one thinks this, but by all means, have fun in your fantasy land lol

ThereRisesARedStar ,

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”

PosadistInevitablity ,
@PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net avatar

You straight up butchered that straw man

He is in pieces

How could you do this

AttackPanda ,

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.

TheLepidopterists ,
@TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net avatar

Yeah, clearcut good is when a government starts building monuments to Holocaust perpetrators, and banning minority languages including Yiddish, followed by a decade of bombing ethnic minorities in a border region.

wtf-am-i-reading

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Did they ban Yiddish, too? I hadn’t heard that, and it’s weird given that almost all Ukrainian Jews fled long ago to get away from, you know, Ukrainian Nazis.

TheLepidopterists ,
@TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net avatar

The 2019 language law has carve outs for English, and national minority languages that are EU languages. Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish specifically don’t get exempted.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

yikes

It’s cool though there’s definitely no ethnic cleansing component to this war, nosiree.

brain_in_a_box ,

The Ukrainians fought hard to get out from under the thumb of Russia

What?

AttackPanda ,

Euromaiden!?!??? Like a major defining moment in Ukrainian history!

brain_in_a_box ,

The one where NATO backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine? That seems like the opposite of fighting to get out from under foreign thumb

FluffyPotato ,

The one that happened because their leader was passing laws making him a dictator and violently putting down protesters leading to more protests causing him to flee. Also any support came after that was over, not before.

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

See, if he were a legitimate leader he would have let the west supplant him in a violent coup WITHOUT reacting to it. That makes it justified post hoc.

You have to let the nazis march. It’s the rules.

FluffyPotato ,

So people in their country should never fight if their leader is working to surpress their rights and become a dictator. They just have to wait for elections that will never be fair again if they even happen. Also he did react to it by fleeing, Putin is not the leader of Ukraine, he has no business reacting to anything.

Putin did march his nazies into Ukraine after that if that’s what you mean.

brain_in_a_box ,

Were you at the January 6th riots, per chance? Your sure have the same reasoning as them.

FluffyPotato ,

Not in the US as I never been there. Also was Biden becoming the dictator of the US? Like if he was declaring protests illegal, giving cops legal rights to kill anyone who does protest and basically make himself the supreme ruler of the US then yea it would be justified.

brain_in_a_box ,

The January 6 protesters certainly believed he was becoming a dictator. I guess the riots were justified.

FluffyPotato ,

Thinking something is true =/= true

brain_in_a_box ,

Indeed, you should think about that fact yourself.

FluffyPotato ,

So are you saying protests are always unjustified because protestors could be wrong?

brain_in_a_box ,

No

FluffyPotato ,

OK then I’m going to stay with my point that the laws passed that triggered the Euromaidan were very protestable and January 6th in the US was a bunch of crazies that fell for propaganda due to poor US education. Also that protests are a good way to get rid of a wannabe dictator.

brain_in_a_box ,

Yes, I’m aware that the liberal position is that couping democratic governments is acceptable if they personally agree with it, but unacceptable when other people do it.

FluffyPotato ,

This is my last reply since I would need to flip my phone to hit the button and that’s way too much effort but this seems to have run it’s course anyways.

I’m pretty sure the liberal position would be that all violent protests are bad, no matter what. That’s why I was asking if that was your position so I could see if you were the rare lib that supports Russia’s war.

Also I don’t think a coup is when people drive a wannabe dictator out if their country though English isn’t my first language. And even if it is I absolutely support people exercising their right to protest and remove a leader trying to dismantle a democracy. I’m not sure what mental gymnastics you are trying to do to equate that to Jan 6th in the US but it makes you sound like a lib.

brain_in_a_box ,

This is my last reply since I would need to flip my phone to hit the button and that’s way too much effort but this seems to have run it’s course anyways.

Good lord, this is the most “I’m totally not mad” sentence I’ve ever seen.

I’m pretty sure the liberal position would be that all violent protests are bad, no matter what.

It’s not, liberals are fine with violent protests when it’s against their enemies.

Also I don’t think a coup is when people drive a wannabe dictator out if their country though English isn’t my first language.

Yes, that absolutely is a coup.

And even if it is I absolutely support people exercising their right to protest and remove a leader trying to dismantle a democracy.

So you support the January 6th riots

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

I mean there’s a recording of Victoria Neuland talking about setting it up from months before but whatever.

FluffyPotato ,

Ah yes, the same point 30 other have brought up as well even though what was said was who they would think the leader is going to be which they, to no ones surprise, said the leader of the opposition, ya know, the guy who would be in power if their system worked like it should. That’s like someone saying they like the guy as leader that got all the votes.

ToxicDivinity ,
@ToxicDivinity@hexbear.net avatar

But the guy who actually got all the votes was yanukovich.

Flinch ,
@Flinch@hexbear.net avatar

Democracy is when you ban all left-leaning parties in your country and burn a hall full of trade unionists alive, and the more parties you ban and trade unionists you burn alive the more democratic you are. I don’t see what’s so hard for these tankies to get!!

Commiejones ,
@Commiejones@hexbear.net avatar

They didn’t just ban the left-wing parties they also seized all their assets.

VentraSqwal ,

Plenty of communist countries ban all but one party, and some even suppress trade unions, and you guys are still willing to call them democratic.

Flinch ,
@Flinch@hexbear.net avatar

Interesting, do you have a source for this? Any particular countries you’d like to critique?

VentraSqwal ,

China, Cuba, Vietnam all allow only one political party. As for suppressing trade unions, there’s the Jasic incident in China in 2018, where they tried to organize a union and strike and they fired all of them. Despite being Maoist in nature, they were detained, arrested, beaten, and disappeared by the police. And they generally have low rates of trade unions participation.

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

I liked that part of the unalloyed good where your heroes locked a hundred ethnically unalloyed bad people in a building and burned them alive

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

I really don’t think a lot of the libs know that happened, or anything about the racial animosity of the right wing nationalist cough Nazi cough Galacians, or the ethnic makeup and goals of the coup Rada, or really much of anything about what’s happening.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

This is one of the few times in history when the scenario is so clear cut good vs evil.

I mean yeah, if you ignore like 200 years of history, then entire history and purpose of NATO, any understanding of the nature of geopolitics and power whatsoever, everything about the economics and politics of all the involved parties, the entire timeline of events between 2013 and now, and a number of other things, it would be clear cut.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

Ukraine is Harry Skywalker and Russia is ebil Darth Voldemord. How much more clear could it be?

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

You’re commenting on an article explicitly saying the US isn’t sending weapons for the purpose of defending Ukraine…

iByteABit ,

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?..

sab ,

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.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

A broken clock is right twice a day, as long as it makes them money, they don’t give a shit who benefits and who loses.

PowerCrazy ,

Feeding the MIC is a bipartisan effort, never forget that.

sab , (edited )

A key difference being that the Democratic party supports state spending on infrastructure in other areas as well. So their understanding of the economy is at least consistent, and your moronic effort to equate "both parties" is, sadly, irrelevant to the point being made here.

don ,

Did he go into suspend mode again while saying the quiet part out loud?

the_kalash ,

Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,

But that is not correct. Several U.S. citizen have died fighting in Ukraine.

GregorGizeh ,

Fair, but those were volunteers. Obviously he is referring to Americans deployed by the government in some form, nobody died in the line of duty so to say.

sab ,

Speaking as a civil serviceman, "we [the State] haven't lost a single American in this war" is accurate. Speaking as an American, "we [the American people] haven't lost a single American in this war" is inaccurate.

In addition to volunteers there's the American journalist Brent Renaud, who was killed by Russian forces last year.

eran_morad ,

Fuck russia. We’re destroying that shithole and ensuring continued Western dominance on the cheap. Putin fucked himself and we’re just helping that process along.

Krause , (edited )
@Krause@lemmygrad.ml avatar

We’re destroying that shithole and ensuring continued Western dominance on the cheap

LMAO, libs on their way to analyze geopolitics: piped.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=L2quonm59Kc

Let’s go over some facts we can source from Western sources:

  1. Russia is outperforming every single EU economy except for Spain
  2. Russia is firing 40 to 50 thousand artillery shells A DAY while the United States can only produce 30 thousand A MONTH, which allows Ukraine to fire about 4000 to 5000 in comparison. Russia is able to fire IN A SINGLE DAY what the United States takes A MONTH to produce, got it?
  3. The so hyped Ukrainian “counteroffensive” has been going on for THREE MONTHS and they haven’t even been able to breach the first line of Russian defenses, let alone produce any gains to justify all the equipment and men they wasted

The plan to isolate and crash Russia’s economy failed, so did the plan to send Ukraine garbage Western equipment without proper training while expecting miraculous results from offensives that do not posses air support and are outgunned 10 to 1 in artillery, I’m not so sure if “shithole” and “western dominance” are words that correctly describe Russia’s situation here.

Paralda ,

I love seeing “aggressively LGBTQ inclusive” tankies bend over backwards to support a literal homophobic fascist dictatorship and parrot their talking points.

diffuselight , (edited )

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.

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yep, but could you please edit out the “cuck taking it in the ass” business? “Humiliated” works and doesn’t make you sound like a “homophobic trumptard”. We’re managing to have a civilized discussion here and I don’t want to see this devolve more into reddit.

SlowNoPoPo ,

It’s funny because inane corrections of a good post is exactly what happens on Reddit

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

It’s not inane, maybe I’m a cuck who likes to take it in the ass. Now what? How are you supposed to offend anyone with that? In what way is putin like me?

PS: I’m not trying to be hostile, btw, I just think it’s filthy language that we absorb and then becomes mainstream and all of a sudden we’re like “cuck this, that cuck that” and we already have enough of that around. :/

PPS: back again. I’m not trying to stop anyone swearing or to police speech, if you wanna say it, whatever. Swearing is a healthy practice that helps vent and we have plenty of shit, dick, fuck and assholes to go around, I just don’t see how that is a good offense, does it help you vent to see putin be fucked in the ass? Maybe he likes it, lol (ew), it just gives me 4chan PTSD :)

diffuselight ,

Well you are not supposed to feel insulted. Context matters. Why would you be insulted, you enjoy cuckolding, good on you, love and let love. No issues with that, we all have our fetishes and one man’s insult is another’s climax - imagine you have a degradation fetish, man /r/the_donald would be so hot. The insult wasn’t aimed at you. You didn’t feel offended. So working as intended.

That’s the point - it’s insulting for tankies because they love strong macho Putin image whose definitely not a bottom. never, totally ever, ok, only a bit if you ask nicely with a coup.

What is annoying on the internet is that everyone thinks it’s about them and every statement has to be minimally offensive to everyone because of this, main character syndrome. It’s not nonsensical, it’s actually giving the right wing it’s power.

So no, I think I won’t be doing that. I’ll continue dishing out highly targeted insults and everyone else can learn that they are not meant to be offended because - as you say, there’s nothing offensive about it unless you are a right wing schmuck with a masculinity complex.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Look, it’s just trashy 4chan+r/the_Donald talk, but ok, use it to your heart’s content if it means that much to you and holds such expressive value to you, we’re all adults here and I’ll just stop reading :) have a nice day.

foggenbooty ,

I agree with you, it undermines his position and makes him look childish, but you tried.

iquanyin ,
@iquanyin@lemmy.world avatar

“maybe im a cuck …now what?” touché! 👍🤣

diffuselight ,

Ones gotta insult tankies in the way they understand. Doesn’t make me homophobic. Cuckolding is a specific fetish that tankies are fascinated with, it’s not a blanket judgement about anyone gay.

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Wtf where did you pull that from? Tankies like to cuck? Hahahaha. You have some good takes, so I can’t block you, but I have no idea where this is coming from, lol

diffuselight , (edited )

Rule of projection. Read up on Roger Stone’s stones activities. It’s deep man.

reddit.com/…/roger_stone_is_literally_a_cuck_foun…

medium.com/…/the-right-faces-its-cuckholding-sex-…

krolden ,
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

reddit

Maybe go back

diffuselight ,

Maybe fuck yourself or block me if you feel offended by something that’s not an insult to a reasonable person.

krolden ,
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

U mad bro?

Krause ,
@Krause@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Being homophobic is ok as long as it’s a bit to own le tankies

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

Even worse than that, it’s a misrepresentation of the cuck/bull relationship dynamic!

electrogamerman ,

Thank you for pointing that out.

redtea ,

It’s not a win win for the Ukrainians, who are losing lives. The article shows what’s been said all along: the US doesn’t gaf about Ukraine or it’s people. The US is only involved to make money and to prop up the US’s dying empire.

Gsus4 ,
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yes, the US is making money helping Ukraine uphold international law and russia is losing money committing war crimes to the last Ukrainian.

redtea ,

If Russia’s aims are ‘imperialistsic’, is it losing money?

Gsus4 , (edited )
@Gsus4@feddit.nl avatar

Yes, you spend blood and treasure to conquer land and then brag about it in history books.

You impose your rule on that land and your peasants rejoice at your statesmanship and feel blessed to join such a great nation, or else…

redtea , (edited )

My point is that nobody doing that would be doing it for free. This applies the apologia for all other empires to Russia. I.e. that empire builders do it sometimes by accident but always for benevolent reasons. That’s incorrect. Empires are built by extracting wealth and to extract wealth.

I think you agree with this as I’m reading your second paragraph as sarcasm. If you do agree, then it’s not possible to conclude that Russia will lose money. It may do, if it loses, although even that is questionable. If it wins, it will gain wealth. Or it’s capitalists will do so. There’s a contradiction between your two paragraphs.

If Russia’s motivations are imperialistic (I haven’t seen evidence for that, myself, but it depends on one’s definition of imperialism), there would be no point if it cost more money to achieve than would be recouped after. Until it’s over, it’s not possible to say that it’s already lost money. It’s costly, but that’s different, and doesn’t answer, ‘Costly for whom?’

(Please don’t misunderstand me – I’m not saying that Russia will not exploit whatever parts of Ukraine it keeps hold of. It’s capitalist. Of course it will. I’m suggesting that this war doesn’t amount to a land grab simpliciter.)

One counter to this is that the US is spending money to ensure that Russia does lose money. Time will tell whether I’m right or wrong but I think this drastically overestimates the strength of the US. It doesn’t have an industrial base (except in vassal and puppet states). So it cannot match Russia’s military output.

And the industries the US does possess are governed by the logic of finance capital not industrial capital. Money spent does not indicate how much has been bought. $10bn spent on weapons, for instance, doesn’t mean you get $10bn worth of weapons by the time you factor in all the sales teams, admin, embezzlement, and middle managers, etc.

The US seems incapable of providing Ukraine with the arms that the Ukrainian military is asking for. It’s publications have started to admit this more and more. Due to the above-mentioned logics, the US doesn’t have the intellectual-ideological or industrial capacity to ramp up manufacturing. The US certainly has people bright enough to figure it out but they’re inconsequential in the face of a military-industrial complex designed to make as much money as possible rather than to ‘win’ wars.

kbotc ,

Oh look, the “NATO is anything I don’t like” Russian apologist tankie guy is back at pulling out fake shit out of their ass.

The US is the second largest manufacturer on the planet, and insources its military production.

Ukraine is complaining that we can’t send them Soviet era military structure compatible weaponry. The US had largely phased out “dig a trench and use artillery to make a breakthrough” back in the late 80s, because we could attain air superiority against Soviet tech.

redtea ,

I see you’re coming at me with another semantic argument. This one based on the notion that by ‘doesn’t have an industrial base’ I can only mean ‘doesn’t have any industrial base’. That’s a rather strange reading as it assumes I have zero grasp of logic. The existence of the tiniest fragment of industry would render my argument incorrect. It’s acting in bad faith to assume I meant that.

Which leaves the search for an alternative interpretation. Such as the US doesn’t have a sufficient industrial base to achieve its goals militarily in the Ukraine. The figures are hard to come by as there are lots of definitional issues. Still, trade publications and Congress are worried.

“U.S. policies and financial investments are not currently oriented to support a defense ecosystem built for peer conflict,” the report read. “This was a troubling truth during the last 20 years of asymmetric conflict against non-state actors. In the return of great power competition, this gap is an unsustainable indictment.”

US manufacturing can be as large as it likes but if it can’t join up it’s thinking and produce what fighters on the front line need, it doesn’t count for much. It’s DIB is not set up for wars against industrialised countries that are determined to fight back. It doesn’t matter what weapons and compatible ammunition the US does produce, either, if it isn’t working to supply them to the people doing the fighting and isn’t willing to use them itself for (rightly) being at least a little bit reluctant to start a nuclear third world war.

I’m a little skeptical of the extent of the claims about the weaknesses of the DIB and more so of the framing of the solution. The details are coming from people who want to increase the military budget (without otherwise wanting to change the underlying political economic system). Still, there does seem to be some movement to use the Ukraine war to justify costly improvements to the US DIB.

Will the changes come? And will they come in time to defeat Russia in Ukraine within a reasonable time frame? The plan will struggle against the existing contradictions unless there’s a change in logic, which doesn’t seem to be on the cards. So it’s unlikely to be a complete success even if some fixes are implemented.

It’s irrelevant whether you accept what I’m saying. I’m only summarising what the US military is saying. This is public information. If you’re interested, search for ‘us defense industrial base’. What I’ve explained is such a hot topic, you don’t even need to add e.g. ‘problems’ to the search terms for articles about the problems to be returned.

kbotc ,

I’m only summarising what the US military is saying.

You’re only summarizing what the US Military Industrial Complex is saying, which isn’t the US Military. National Defense Industrial Association != US Military, again going back to the “NATO is whatever I define it as” that you keep insisting.

Mark Milley is the mouthpiece of the US Military as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he’s not mincing words: Russia will lose militarily in Ukraine. It will take time and blood, but the US is responsible for 34% of the world’s military industrial output and claiming

It’s DIB is not set up for wars against industrialised countries that are determined to fight back.

Is not reality. We’ve only faced off once, and the Battle of Khasham did not go well for the “industrialized country determined to fight back”

kbotc ,

Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the ‘international’ courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You’re making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can’t have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there’s not much left for us to discuss.

Your position literally is the NATO is all the imperial capitalists in the world, and somehow Russia is not involved in either of those definitions and deserves to be apologized for. It’s internally inconsistent and is shill behavior.

You have an agenda, and it’s pro imperialist, as long as the imperialist is not the US. Congrats; If you were in the US, you’re dumb enough that you’d be shilling for Trump because “He’s gonna drain the swamp!”

diffuselight ,

Without the US more ukrainians would die and Russia would have overrun them by now and subjugated them into the shitshow they call motherland.

So it’s a win win.

Ask Ukrainians which version they prefer - US involvement or not. Oh wait, it’s pretty clear they prefer the kill rabid bear with Himars version.

The only version they’d like even more is killing bear with ATACMS and F16.

So fuck off tankie.

Krause ,
@Krause@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Ask Ukrainians which version they prefer - US involvement or not.

Yeah there’s just one little problem here fam: the US backed a coup there and installed pro-war neo-nazis in power, there was no question about it left to the Ukrainians.

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

Well in that case you should support US sending weapons even more, just fascists fighting fascists, right?

Krause ,
@Krause@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I support the US sending the F-16s tomorrow, yesterday, whenever they want really.

Let’s see those planes shot down by Russia, I’m sure it’ll do very well for morale in the army and support back at home!

redtea ,

In the liberal imagination, history started this morning, every morning, unfortunately. Historical context is practically irrelevant to them once they’ve been told which side to pick.

I’m fairly sure that if you asked Ukrainians, there’d be a clear victory for ‘please can everyone stop aiming RPGs at my grandma’s house and my son’s school?’ although I’d expect regional split in the answers. The only people who root for war like this are (if there’s a difference between them) psychopaths, liberals who are far from the frontlines, and fascists.

GoodEye8 ,

there was no question about it left to the Ukrainians.

Except for the nearly a million Euromaidan protesters and half the country in support of protest, with the support rising after the supposed “coup”? The very protest that set the “coup” in motion because Russia used the corrupt pro-russia prime minister to strike down the pro-eu deal. Seems to me like Ukrainians wanted this “coup”.

legion02 ,

Eh, we’re not in there for a couple reasons and they all make sense. It would preclude NATO from ever entering because of the non-aggression portion of the agreement, and it would put Russia in a corner where they have to either admit defeat (which putin won’t do) or go nuclear which is bad for everyone but especially bad for Ukraine.

redtea ,

The article in the OP is explicitly talking about US involvement. The US and NATO are ‘in there’. If NATO isn’t in Ukraine, it was hardly ever anywhere.

Arguing that NATO isn’t involved seems to be either disingenuous or naive. It accepts NATO’s PR at face value and in opposition to the practical reality. NATO/the US tends not announce it’s clandestine work in the tabloids or the broadsheets, especially as it happens but it does admit it sometimes, if you know what you’re looking for. In the case of Ukraine, it’s not even hidden. They’ve been bragging about how much weaponry they’ve been sending and how much they’ve been involved in training and instructing Ukrainians how to fight.

Was the US involved when it trained and funded Saddam, Bin Laden, or the Contras? Of course it was. Ukraine is another example of how the US gets involved without ‘getting it’s hands dirty’; although I’ve yet to meet anyone IRL who doesn’t think the US has the bloodiest, grimiest hands of all. The only question is whether people think it’s a good thing or a bad thing. The fact of it is not open to dispute.

I’ll struggle to accept any argument that splits hairs over what counts as involvement, I’m afraid. It boils down to semantics without addressing the crux of the issue.

I’m also struggling to see why more visible NATO/US involvement would require Russia to admit defeat until it’s been defeated. Unless you’re implying that NATO would wipe the floor with Russia. That doesn’t seem right for two reasons:

  1. The best minds and the resources of NATO have been demonstrably unable to stop Russia so far and
  2. If Russia looks like losing, it has the nuclear option and shit gets real messy real quick and it’s lose-lose for everyone
legion02 ,

3rd party involvement and direct engagement are two very different things. The non-aggression agreement, the one that protects and constrains nato members, only cares about engagement, training and arms are a-ok. What member states agreed to is concrete and well defined, not whatever amorphous definition you’re going by here.

kbotc ,

The “loose definition” redtea came up with is bonkers.

Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the ‘international’ courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You’re making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can’t have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there’s not much left for us to discuss.

The nutbag’s definition of NATO includes Russia.

FluffyPotato ,

Without aid Ukraine would lose more lives.

redtea ,

Do you honestly believe that? You honestly think that US aid has saved lives in Ukraine? Some surely has but the weapons? Ig it’s not your family and friends in the cross hairs, your fields poisoned with depleted uranium, or your kids’ cross country tracks littered with cluster munitions. You really think the country responsible for embargoes of medical supplies to Palestine, Yemen, and Cuba, to name a few, is sending aid to save lives?

Ukraine is another Kurdistan to the US. The only question is whether it will take the Ukrainians as long as it took the Kurds to learn that the US is nobody’s friend.

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net avatar

Russia has been using cluster munitions the entire war, and their bomblets have a 40% failure rate. US-made ones have a >3% failure rate. Point your criticism where it belongs

Grosboel ,

Ok, and? Are they doing something wrong? Aren’t we supposed to scold someone when they’re doing bads things, and praise them for doing good things, not just shit on them no matter what?

US involvement is unambiguously a good thing morally and for the people of Ukraine. Any other take would lunacy. So why are you taking time to shit on the US and not the ethnonationalist dictatorship invading a democratic neighbor of theirs? Are your priorities that messed up? America bad? Certainly, but it hurts YOU to have a such narrow minded view geopolitics. The US isn’t always the bad guy.

redtea ,

The US has spent 30+ years shit stirring, dismantling Ukraine, running coups, and undermining Ukraine’s relationships with it’s closest neighbours. Now it’s provoked a war and all gullible liberals can say is the same thing they said about the US contemporaneously with all its other wars.

The article in the OP demonstrates exactly what I and others like me have been saying from the start: the US is not involved to be the good guy, it has no moral high ground; it is only involved to make money, and no number of Ukrainian lives is too great a price to pay for US prosperity. The US is involved to steal as much Ukrainian wealth as possible.

It’s not just the ‘profit’ from selling the weapons (which Ukraine will pay for, not the US, so there’s no benevolence in it but self-interest). Every aid package is another tranche of the same kind of loans that the US has used to loot and privatise the country’s assets for decades. The same thing the US does everywhere. The only difference now is the novelty of trying to physically destroy Russia’s military at the same time.

It’s a bit rich to say that I’m the one with a narrow minded view of geopolitics when you’ve reduced a 30+ year conflict to it’s surface details. Events like this cannot be separated from the political economy or their historical context. It’s clear that liberals still haven’t learned to correct a flaw in their framework that was identified 150 years ago (source otherwise only indirectly relevant):

That in their appearance things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well known in every science except Political Economy.

Some people have dug beneath the appearance of things, whereas others accept them in their inverted form.

FlightyPenguin ,
@FlightyPenguin@lemmy.world avatar

Anti Rabid Bear Alliance. I’d like to petition to change NATO to ARBA.

EchoesInOverdrive ,

What exactly is a tankie? I wanted to upvote this post when I saw its content, but I found the tag from the OP about the “quiet part” to be off-putting as though this quote from McConnell is a negative thing. I don’t like or think McConnell is a good person, but to me this quote reads as a way to sell continued support for Ukraine to the crazier parts of our government. Like a “oh, you don’t want to spend money on Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do? Well here, how about because it’s making money for Americans.” Sure, maybe not the reason I support funding and arming Ukraine, but if it convinces people who aren’t already in support, then I’m for it. If anything, it seems shrewd.

I’ve seen a lot of posts/comments on Lemmy about tankies recently and I’m confused about what that means. Haven’t quite been able to determine from context since the context seems different depending on the post. Sorry if it’s a dumb question.

bitsplease ,

Basically it means someone who supports Russia - usually Communists (which is fine) who - for some reason think Russia is still communist (which is dumb)

honeynut ,

Literally no communist thinks Russia is still communist

bitsplease ,

There seems to be a startling overlap on lemmy between Communists and Russia supporters. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a comment either from hexbear or lemmy grad in favor of Ukraine over Russia.

If it’s not because they think Russia is on the side of communism, then what the hell is going on in their heads?

honeynut , (edited )

Support as in they enjoy the prospect of Russia winning? That they like Putin and want him to conquer Ukraine?

They mostly consider this war to be a proxy war between Russia and United States + its wards in the EU who wish to needlessly prolong the war at the cost of Ukranian lives in order to deplete the Russian economy and military. Within this group, you can further break them down into: those who disagree with the invasion and those who believe it is justified.

For the latter, they would point to the secession crisis in the Donbass after the Maidan and subsequent intentional blockading of fresh water to Crimea as justification for intervention, with the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO being the trigger.

For the group that disavows the invasion, you need to understand that it is difficult for communists to cheerleader their own state pumping weapons into a country whose government heralds bold-faced Nazis as righteous warriors of freedom. This does not necessarily mean they believe that Putin is genuinely concerned about Nazis since the Wagner PMC itself has a notorious far right and neo-Nazi presence.

Simply not supporting the Ukrainian state nor NATO does not mean supporting Russia. On the other hand, those who do support Russia aren’t always necessarily communists, but will flock to spaces that have that overlap in interests.

PipedLinkBot ,

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): piped.video/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

bitsplease ,

Support as in they enjoy the prospect of Russia winning? That they like Putin and want him to conquer Ukraine?

I mean, yes - as a matter of fact. Just look in this thread at the numerous comments from those two instances of users saying that Ukraine should have just surrendered, and that it’s their fault for not agreeing to Putin’s “peace” proposal.

You’re definitely not going to hear me argue in favor of NATO’s actions, but none of that (with the exception of Ukraine joining NATO) excuses an invasion of Ukraine - and regarding Ukraine joining NATO - they’re a sovereign state, it’s not Russias right to invade their neighbors because they don’t like Ukraines international policy. If the US decided to invade Mexico because they were thinking about signing a mutual defense agreement with China, you can bet your ass I’d be out in the street protesting the war.

And if we’re going to say that a country deserves to be ravaged because a small portion of their population espouses white supremacist policies, then I guess the U.S., Italy, Germany, Russia itself, and a whole shitload others should start getting shelled as well. Unfortunately, for very complex reasons, a huge chunk of the world has a neonazi problem right now, using it as an excuse for an invasion is absolute bull shit.

Simply not supporting the Ukrainian state nor NATO does not mean supporting Russia

Except that it does. Russia invaded Ukraine - and so far they haven’t given a single signal that they’d be willing to any peace agreement that leaves Ukraine with it’s original borders. Ultimately if Ukraine loses, it’ll mean that it will be annexed. It would be a very different situation if Russia was offering a real peace (one that doesn’t involve Ukraine giving up it’s own territory) and Ukraine was being obstinate, but there is no realistic pacifist position to be taken here

honeynut ,

I’m not debating. The original conversation was that you said communists supported Russia because they think it’s communist, and I clarified that they really don’t.

jackalope ,

This is not true. I’ve talked with people in person at socialist organizations that were claiming that putin was secretly Marxist at the beginning of the invasion. There def are campists who will double down on nonsense.

honeynut ,

What organization?

jackalope ,

A local marxist-leninist org I know through activist circles. They aren’t big or influential and I wouldn’t take them to be representative of most self identified socialist political orgs in America. They’re fringe.

diffuselight ,

A subsection of people who are so far right they ended up on the left again, strongly aroused by military (tanks) symbols, manliness and strength while simultaneously being convinced that Russia is the good guys and therefore whatever they do must be good because US is bad.

There’s a few varieties here. Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky for example who basically are the US is bad so anything is the opposite of what US says (down to denying russian genocide in syria because, well, they are against the US).

There’s the cosplay section of milbloggers and western cosplay russian twitter specialists who usually are Canadian or German or Alabama white males in their basement cosplaying to be in Ukraine fighting for Russia

And of course plenty of russian males who actually buy the narratives.

Most of them have one thing in common - they just can’t handle reality and therefore escape into increasingly insane contortion… basically Republicans meet Covid again.

EchoesInOverdrive ,

Thanks! Appreciate the in depth response

Sackbut ,

This is hilarious to read lol. Stop using words you don’t know the meaning of.

You’re right that this war is partially about the US attempting to test and modernize weapons, but the US spending more money on it’s already bloated military isn’t a ‘win’ for anybody except for neo-cons.

diffuselight ,

You should ask Ukrainians about their opinion on that. They love sending your tankie friends some good old American Himars

oce ,
@oce@jlai.lu avatar

I think this Wikipedia quote is more informational

The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.[7][8]

The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[9][10] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung. In modern times, the term is used across the political spectrum to describe those who have a bias in favor of illiberal or authoritarian states with a socialist legacy or a nominally left-wing government, such as the Republic of Belarus, People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Additionally, tankies have a tendency to support non-socialist states with no socialist legacy if they are opposed to the United States and the Western world in general, regardless of their ideology,[4][11] such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

yogthos ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

The alternate reality you live in sounds fascinating.

iquanyin ,
@iquanyin@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

The only thing Kojima got wrong was his depiction of women

jackpot ,
@jackpot@lemmy.ml avatar

who and what

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

?

You don’t know who Hideo Kojima is?

jackpot ,
@jackpot@lemmy.ml avatar

am i expected to

Awoo ,

He’s kind of a household name in videogames so it’s unusual not to know.

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

I mean if you don’t play many videogames it’s not unusual.

Awoo ,

Sure but that’s like 50-60% of western populations and 36% of global so. Not sure about america specifically but I know the european figure off the top of my head and it’s 51%, my gut assumption would be the US is higher?

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

It’s very high everywhere, though my understanding is a lot of people game on their phones, like more than 50%, and it’s been a while since there was a mobile MGS game.

PolandIsAStateOfMind ,
@PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml avatar

I do play video games but not particularly those video games. I long forgotten the name of Hideo Kojima which i play like one game 25 years ago and i didn’t even liked it.

nohaybanda ,

gigachad

freeze-gamers in shambles

Flyberius ,
@Flyberius@hexbear.net avatar

It’s ok not to know. I think it’s extremely odd to think most people would know.

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

I agree

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

I’m just kind of surprised. He’s such a huge cultural influence for a lot of people. His Metal Gear Solid games are very well regarded both for their gameplay, but also for their commentary on modern politics, especially the MIC, that ping-pongs from utterly bizarre and surreal and frighteningly prophetic.

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

Hideo Kojima is the creator of the Metal Gear Solid video game franchise. The games have a plot critical of the war economy/racket. I think the original commenter is saying that the games got their criticism of the war economy right, but their depiction of women was sexist and/or oversexualised.

ChestRockwell ,
@ChestRockwell@hexbear.net avatar

Also the middle part of Xenoblade Chronicles 2, funnily enough.

Just played and was like “holy shit this has just become a Kojima game”. It was awesome.

kojima

PowerCrazy ,

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

silent_water ,
@silent_water@hexbear.net avatar

funneling money to the executives of the MIC is the entire purpose of the defense budget. why would they suddenly stop now?

aaaaaaadjsf ,
@aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net avatar

I mean that’s the entire point. Ever read “war is a racket”?. It still holds up today.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

Alternately, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

MooDib ,

There absolutely is a more efficient way if Putin didn’t invade Ukraine, but we can only work with the hand that we’re dealt.

PowerCrazy ,

Did we not make weapons instead of providing healthcare before putin invade ukraine? I mean maybe we did and I just didn’t realize it, but I’m pretty sure weapons were already being made in lieu of social investment well before putin was born.

thebardingreen ,
@thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz avatar

Working for an aerospace electronics startup, I have SO MUCH to say about this and how fucked it is.

PosadistInevitablity ,
@PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net avatar

We could just give the money to people for nothing but that would apparently be more immoral and illogical than having them make purely destructive things.

This makes sense to many people

Dolores ,
@Dolores@hexbear.net avatar

are we the baddies when the only domestic manufacturing we do is cancer tank shells & child murder bombs?

HawlSera ,

No those are Freedom cancer tank shells and freedom child murder bombs

Very different from what our enemies are doing, you see we are doing it, therefore it is good.

That’s my impression of what I genuinely believe a conservative sounds like.

Frank ,
@Frank@hexbear.net avatar

I don’t think Russia has been using DU munitions. It’s not like they’re needed for any of the tanks UA has. They have been using cluster bombs, though, because apparently we just can’t get anyone to stop that.

honeynut ,

This. Is. An. Investment. In. Democracy.

Crashumbc ,

If Europe got involved and stopped Germany in Poland, world war 2 may never have happened…

rikudou ,

Why no one ever mentions Czechia? They literally had a summit about our country where we kinda weren’t invited and decided that yeah, Hitler can take huge parts of Czechia, because that will surely stop him from expanding. Because it’s usually the case - when something is very easy and costs you close to nothing, you immediately stop because you’ve had enough, right?

trooperjess ,

Damn right. Also don’t forget austra was given away.

Commiejones ,
@Commiejones@hexbear.net avatar

I don’t know if this is a joke or not and at this point I am afraid to ask.

LinkedinLenin ,

Gotta be from that one copypasta from like three days ago

honeynut ,

:both-sides-mac:

explodicle ,

I can understand other arguments as to why we should be funding the war. But this one is a parable of the broken window. We could have been paying Americans to make more useful things than weapons; it’s still a net loss.

Palkom ,

I agree and disagree, I guess. It’s sad that so much money is invested in the military industrial complex, but since those weapons are used to fight an opressive and dictatorial regime in favor of democracy, I guess its better. Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz refer to the use of an army as the continuation of the political process, and democratization of Ukraine is to many a worthy goal, as opposed to the growth of the Russian sphere of influence. Opposing Russia now might lead to a lower overall negative impact than if the same figth is had after Ukraine is annexed and Poland is next in line, but that’s just a hypothetical.

GrumpigPoopBalls ,

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/05f340e4-0581-4215-b719-84a95f5c649a.png

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •