Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

          • bitsplease@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

            Sounds pretty familiar to me.

              • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

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

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

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

                • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

                  Show one example, lib.

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            Russia’s initial negotiation demands were things like this:

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

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

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                None of what?

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

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

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

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that’s a meaningless point.
                  2. The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.
                  3. Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.
                  4. One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.
                  5. They may now, depending on how the war goes.

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

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

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

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

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

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      Talk about rent free mind rot.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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 [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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 [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • Lodra@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

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

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

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

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

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

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

          ?

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

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

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

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

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

          Just thinking aloud here I don’t know.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

              and has survived everything the US threw at it so far

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

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

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

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

              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  NATO is not hostile to russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • navorth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          But yeah NATO is a defensive alliance.

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Russia after Yeltsin

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

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

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

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

                  Fellow ex Warsaw Pact resident here.

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

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

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

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

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

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO

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

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

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

          non hostile sovereign state

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

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

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

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

          Hosting NATO troops is the epitome of hostility.

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

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

          non hostile sovereign state

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

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

            • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Cool to learn, I didn’t know that.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

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

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

          • sol@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            Nevertheless, conquering and genociding whole Ukraine is not approvable

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

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

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

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          This isn’t model UN.

      • Tigbitties@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

      • LordR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

      West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

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

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

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

            since joining the EU

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

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

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

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

            Source: I live in an ex-soviet country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      Like just little things.

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

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

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

      Do you know what “encirclement” means?

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

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

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

      Do you know who Bandera was?

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

      What do you know?

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

        Yes.

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

        What do you know?

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

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

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

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

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

          Non-sequitor?

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

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

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

          Could I get a sticker instead?

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

          • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

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

              Does Ukraine not have the right to defend their territory?

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

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

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

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

          You know that, right?

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

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

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

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

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

    • AttackPanda@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

        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

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

        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!!

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

            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@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

                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@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

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

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

    • SootyChimney [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t even mind extending the war so much if there was any attempt to have some good faith peace negotiations to at least entertain a chance at peace??? Russia has always been up for peace talks, Ukraine/the West has not. In fact I am still often shouted down if I so much as say that all sides should be discussing the possibility of peace.

      I agree Russia bad and should not be doing an awful invasion, but there is also a much wider context to their invasion that involves Ukraine refusing to give its eastern regions a vote on their own future and bombing civilians for 8 years. This war was very far from inevitable, even without giving Russia any major concessions.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

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

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

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US obviously doesn’t care but the aid is helping Ukraine keep it’s independence and even if US pulled out Europe would continue it’s support. Like Poland is amping up ammo production to the point where it alone can supply Ukraine with ammo. Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason. Also even if Ukraine got no support it’s not like they would stop fighting, they would just be slaughtered and occupied by the Russians which is the worst outcome for them considering what’s going on in the occupied regions. Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that’s a good thing.

  • diffuselight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

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

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

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