Suggesting the defender in a war should just stop fighting, or that helping them is bad because if they did not have the ability to defend themselves, they'd quickly be unable to fight and the war would end with their defeat, is not anti-war. It is appeasement, and that is ultimately pro-war, because it creates a situation in which starting wars of aggression can benefit the ones who start them, which inevitably leads to more wars being started. To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
Where did I claim to be smart? I am merely pointing out that, if you give those who start wars what they want, they have an incentive to go and start more of them.
Considering your takes, I certainly didn't assume you were smart, although I don't think intelligence is a qualitative measurement.
In terms of wars, you do realize that wars are started for different reasons, right? The material realities that start wars differ vastly from war to war. Also, if the USA is any example, losing a war does not do anything to stop a country from starting another one.
Anyways, you have the right idea about it being unjust that those who start wars of aggression reap benefits from starting them. That is why it is best for both Russia and Ukraine to resolve this using peaceful negotiations, as the reason why america is pouring military hardware into the latter is to bolster its own war of aggression against Russia motivated by cynical geopolitical interests.
This current conflict has a long and bloody history stretching way back from 2014 till now. It is called the "Russo-Ukranian war" and started with the Euromaidan incident when the EU used far right groups to antidemocratically depose a pro-Russian Ukranian president and plant someone who is more aligned with their agenda so that they could put pressure on Russia, as Russia was starting to get unfriendly towards the American trading bloc.
As such, the true nature of this conflict is an awful proxy war between Russia and NATO (america), where innocents suffer and the rich get richer.
Therefore, I think we would both agree that it is not good for america to send more weapons to Ukraine as this would be fulfilling america's own selfish geopolitical interests using the lives of innocent Ukranians.
While in principle I do get the idea that a negotiated peace is preferable to a situation where the two parties in a conflict simply fight themselves until one side physically cannot, I do not see a way in which that can reasonably be done in the case of this conflict without one side being beaten militarily, because the goals of each side are not comparable. Russia has been trying to annex territory from Ukraine, but as far as I have seen, Ukraine has not sought to take land from Russia (if you take only the current phase of the conflict, one might suggest that they are seeking to retake Crimea, but as you yourself pointed out, the conflict itself has been ongoing for longer than the current large scale war has been going on, and as such, even if the Ukrainians managed to take it somehow, that would not represent the addition of new territory not in their possession before the conflict started). The problem this presents is that, if one were to negotiate a "white peace", that is to say, just put the border back to how it was before the conflict started, then that effectively represents Ukraine accomplishing pretty much all of its major goals and Russia none of it's own. As such, Russia has no particular reason to accept this, unless physically forced to by virtue of military defeat, which would kind of defeat the point of a negotiated settlement in the first place as that would simply represent a Ukrainian military victory anyway. But on the flipside, ceeding any of the disputed land to Russia represents a situation where Russia wins- maybe not anything like as big a win as they would like, but they would in that scenario have started a large scale war (regardless of how exactly the conflict itself began, Russia did take the step of turning it from what it was into a full-scale war, by invading Ukraine), and then ultimately gained territory from it, which is exactly the sort of precedent that we've already established needs to be avoided. What then, is left for such a settlement to be?
Just going to reply to myself here, as I did not finish what I was thinking earlier (I was on my lunch break and as I like to take time to reply to these things, I ran out of time, my apologies). In any case, what I was trying to say is, that I do not think a mutually satisfactory peace settlement can be achieved here, due to the sides involved having completely exclusive objectives. As such, I see three options for how the war could end:
some degree of a Russian victory
some degree of a Ukrainian victory
a long grinding war of attrition that never results in victory for anyone and settles into a frozen conflict, like seen in Korea.
I think most will agree that the last one is a bad outcome, due to the result of a long war with no resolution. I personally do not believe a Russian victory is acceptable either, for the reasons I talked about earlier, about rewarding aggression. Therefore, the only remaining option I see as plausible is a Ukrainian victory, therefore I take the stance that Ukraine should win. If Ukraine were to win, I further hold that it is preferable that they do so quickly and decisively, as it is better that the war be resolved with the minimum number of casualties, on either side, and a war of attrition does not do that by definition. Ukraine does not currently seem to have the resources required to achieve this, given that their current counter-offensive operations are proceeding relatively slowly. I therefore do support giving them those resources, and more, if they need it, and security guarantees afterwards- not because I am in any way in favor of war, but because I honestly believe that doing so is required in order for it end as quickly as realistically possible with the lowest chance of a similar war breaking out again soon after.
I imagine that you and others in this thread will disagree with the premises I take, or the conclusions I draw from them, but I hope at least that I've been able to make my reasoning clear on how I arrive at the conclusion that I do.
Why is it so critical to punish Russian aggression? It’s not like it’s the only aggressive state around, and definitely not the worst? Hasn’t the fact that not a single official responsible for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen been punished a bigger factor in rewarding aggression?
Id say that those officials should be or should have been punished, the fact that they have not been is not a factor in how I feel that the current situation should be dealt with. "Other people got away with it" is not an excuse
I’m not saying it as an excuse, I’m trying to point out that aggression has been rewarded before this. You’re arguing that it is critical to punish Russia to send a message to other states that aggression won’t succeed but I’m saying that ship has already sailed
That would make it even more critical though, because it would not enough to reinforce the status quo, it would be necessary to demonstrate that things that once were considered acceptable on the international stage no longer are.
By that logic isn’t it far more critical to punish the truly bad actors? George bush killed way more people than have been killed in Russia's invasion. What message does it send that he’s allowed to roam free?
Oh I have no problem at all with having George Bush see justice for his actions, but this thread wasn't exactly about him, it was about the whole Ukraine/Russia situation. Were it a thread about some sort of trial or such for him, I'd absolutely be advocating turning him over.
Because Russia is fighting a war, with the resulting casualties and destruction, right now. The faster they are stopped, the less damage is ultimately caused. George Bush, for the example you used earlier, is not currently doing this. So while he's still someone who has gotten away with things he should not have done, time is less of essence in his case, at the moment. It's like asking why it is more critical to attempt to stop an attempted murder in progress, then it is to work on investigating the one that someone else committed last week. Again though, the relative importance of them is not really relevant here anyway, because the discussion was about Ukraine and Russia in the first place. There are a great many bad actors in the world, many of which have faced no justice for what they have done, to include quite a few in the US, yes, and one could ask that same question about any one of them, whenever one of the others comes up.
I guess what I’m trying to get across here is that it’s very hard for me to trust that any punishment of Russia will result in any long term change to behaviors of other bad actor if the nations doing the punishing are completely unable to apply justice across the board. It’s a lot easier for the US to send Bush to The Hague than Putin you know?
Other bad actors like Saudi or Azerbaijan are also currently being rewarded by the same people calling for punishment of Russia. What message does that send to future tyrants? That as long as you’re useful to the west we will ignore your crimes?
UA, and by that I mean its state, has been a naked pawn since 2014, responding to Western interests to stoke and prolong civil war by the Russian border, target ethnic Russians with discrimination and violence (and Roma, and LGBTQ+ people, etc), and generally toy with joining NATO, a highly aggressive anti-Russian military organization.
The dominant Western propaganda narrative is to try to get everyone to forget the breathless reporting their media outlets did on Ukraine from 2013-2022 and to instead use absurd little terms like, "unprovoked invasion", which I would guess is also where the idea of UA being simply defensive comes from. Yes, they were invaded by Russia, but they've also been ratcheting up pressure on Russia for a decade through various cynical moves, beginning with a coup against a government that was becoming slightly friendlier with Russia. The most notable events just prior to the RF invading was a huge ramping up of shelling of the Donbas, including civilian population centers.
Anyways, yes it is bad to keep pushing the "escalate and fight to the last Ukrainian button". It would be much better if Ukraine were forced to negotiate peace and were not acting as a pawn against Russia rather than a state protecting its own people.
If Russia wanted to end the war so bad they could just leave. Ukraine doesn't have that option.
Russia invaded Ukraine to gain new territory. If you want the war to end as it stands now, then you're okay with giving up land and the people they've kidnapped from it to a fascist regime in a war of aggression. That's supporting a fascist government.
Okay but instead of making infantile suggestions that no one with any sort of adult mind think is even possible, including the US and Ukrainian Militaries, why don’t we talk about actually likely ways to end the war? Why are the two choices perpetual war and unilateral surrender? It sounds an awful lot like you want to fight “to the last Ukrainian”, to me.
I never said those are the only two choices, but every peace deal that Russia has come to the table with either includes ceding large amounts of territory or giving up control over their government. Do you think the Ukrainian people would find any of that acceptable after everything Russia has put them through?
Sounds an awful lot like you just want fascist Russia to conquer Ukraine.
We may have varying definitions of their territory, or maybe we’re looking at different proposed peace accords.
Donetsk and Luhansk are recognized by Ukraine under the Minsk II accords as autonomous zones, contained within Ukraine, but not subject to its laws. So, if that’s what you’re referring to, that isn’t Ukrainian territory anymore than Turkish Kurdistan is Turkeys territory. I support the right of people to self determination, up to and including the right to declare autonomy.
If that’s not what you’re referring to, then I must be behind, because that’s the last peace accord that I heard of.
No, the heads of NATO, Ukraine and Russia shouldn't be rewarded for their acts of violence against the people of Russia and Ukraine. All sides should withdraw from the territories in which they are not welcome by the people.
Also Russia didn't invade Ukraine to "gain new territory", do you know when the war started?
(Furthermore its important to clarify that although Russia is a neoliberal hellpit, NATO, using Ukraine as a meat shield for their interests, is way, way worse, literally headed by one of the most evil countries that ever existed: the USA, as such, it is foolish to trust that anything they do in this situation will help the people of Ukraine, including dump military hardware into the region for disposal and testing)
🙄 Yes, we all know Russia started a thinly veiled proxy war in 2014 when the Ukrainian people voted in favor of a western friendly government, and then Russia escalated it into a full blown war when that wasn't getting them the influence over Ukraine that they wanted.
What I don't understand, though, is why a bunch of self proclaimed communists are so in favor of expanding the global influence of a post-fascist government. Aren't communists supposed to be diametrically opposed to fascism? Their wartime Z symbol is essentially a half drawn swastika, like how do you not see it?
Being in favor of China, as they are at least communists in rhetoric, I get. But really, modern day Russia? Marx would be ashamed.
Ukrainian people voted in favor of a western friendly government
Your Ukranian "people":
Show
(its mostly fascist paramilitaries funded by god knows who)
Your "voting":
Show
(there was no democractic referendum held to oust the president)
Also, the west itself is a white supremacist fascist entity who went to Ukraine in 2014 to put pressure on Russia by cutting off potential allies. They are not the good guys.
What I don't understand, though, is why a bunch of self proclaimed communists are so in favor of expanding the global influence of a post-fascist government.
Again, how are peace talks and settling matters via negotiation being "in favor of a fascist government"? Why are you so in favor of expanding the global influence of a fascist organisation (NATO) via the continuation of the war? Why are you opposed to the people of the Donbas being free from the horrors of civil war at the hands of the Ukranian military? Did you know that the majority of people in the Donbas are ethnic russians, and are pro-separatist? Did you know that this is the reason why Ukraine started shelling the fuck out of them and decided to sic their Nazi dogs on them in 2014? Why are you in favor of continuing a bloody war when a mutually beneficial agreement for all sides, even with respect to pre war conditions, can be reached from peaceful negotiation?
Their wartime Z symbol is essentially a half drawn swastika, like how do you not see it?
This is projection, the left has consistently been anti war this entire time, yet liberals are on the side of outright fascists in the ukranian military being given experimental weapons when they are not outright denying they exist.
You're not the left. The left hates you. You're just bloodthirsty edgelords being astroturfed by Russian paid trolls.
You're not at all anti-war either, you just want Russia to win the war. You're the person watching George Floyd getting choked to death here and says "well it's his fault for resisting."
The only thing separating you from actual fascists is username pronouns.
Projection for $100, Chuck. We're not the ones advocating for the global interests of white supremacist fascist nations in their genocide of the third world.
You're just bloodthirsty edgelords being astroturfed by Russian paid trolls.
"ERRYONE I DONT LIKE IS M-MUH RUSSIAN BOTERINOS!!!" I hope you're memeing because this is going into the realm of unhinged conspiracy theories otherwise.
you just want Russia to win the war. You're the person watching George Floyd getting choked to death here and says "well it's his fault for resisting."
No, we don't want there to be a fucking war in the first place, a peace deal is not a loss for either side except NATO because they don't get to destabilize another region with a forever war like how they did with Afghanistan.
inb4 "muh russia must b punished"!!!!
the lack of nuance you have about this situation truly reveals that you're just a puppet mouthpiece for NATO's fascist, warmongering propaganda to further its interests in the region through bloody conflict.
The 8 year war between Russia and Ukraine (NATO) is the same as america doing systemic genocide against black people after enslaving them for over 400 years, and, even after, doing everything in their power to make the life of a black person in america a truly miserable experience, yes. What a fucking disgusting comparison and minimization of america's evil.
The only thing separating you from actual fascists is username pronouns.
Imagine seething this much over pronouns lmao
And again, how are peace talks and settling matters via negotiation being "in favor of a fascist government"? Why are you so in favor of expanding the global influence of a fascist organisation (NATO) via the continuation of the war? Why are you opposed to the people of the Donbas being free from the horrors of civil war at the hands of the Ukranian military? Did you know that the majority of people in the Donbas are ethnic russians, and are pro-separatist? Did you know that this is the reason why Ukraine started shelling the fuck out of them and decided to sic their Nazi dogs on them in 2014? Why are you in favor of continuing a bloody war when a mutually beneficial agreement for all sides, even with respect to pre war conditions, can be reached from peaceful negotiation?
Nobody actually thinks russia is a force for good in this situation, its just that an end of hostilities for the drafting of a peace agreement is much better for the people.
Talk about lacking nuance. You can criticize NATO for plenty, but calling it fascist while ignoring the rise of literal Russian style fascism is telling. You seem to simply use fascism as a synonym for bad without even understanding what it is. Therefore everything you don't like (i.e. anything western) is automatically labeled fascist, and anything that is actual literal fascism but anti-west is somehow not fascism.
The war isn't NATO vs Russia, it's Ukraine vs Russia. Just because NATO can gain from a weakened Russia doesn't mean they are responsible for the war or are responsible for dragging it on. Nobody wanted this war, this is purely Russia's doing. Just because Ukraine has some marginal neo-nazi groups doesn't mean the country is run by Nazis.
The great irony is you're so caught up in this baseless rhetoric believing that you're fighting fascists that you end up supporting a textbook fascist government engaging in the very same imperial conquest that you accuse the west of.
"YOU SAY NATO IS AN IMPERIALIST GENOCIDAL ORGANIZATION B-B-BUT W-WHAT ABOUT RUSSIA??? WHAT ABOUT MUH HECKING RUSSIA???"
I can call it a fascist organization because it is one. For the 100th time, I know Russia is a neoliberal state with a Nazi problem too, however I am not going to fall for state department propaganda and place the majority of the responsibility for this mess solely on Russia to minimize the gross involvement of the imperialist white supremacist settler-colonial extractive project that is NATO. It was a bad move of them to escalate tensions, but it was even worse for NATO to come in and destabilize the fucking region in the first place in 2014 with euromaidan and actively oppose peaceful negotiations as the war drags on and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people like you or I suffer and die in a hell on earth. Can you understand this?
Nobody wanted this war, this is purely Russia's doing. Just because Ukraine has some marginal neo-nazi groups doesn't mean the country is run by Nazis.
Are you fucking kidding me? What are you even talking about? You didn't read a single word of the post you are replying to and are just parroting off whatever talking points Murdoch gave you to manufacture consent for NATOs proxy war.
Are you actually saying that the West, after first and foremost destroying the region, causing human suffering on an untold scale, in the 90s with neoliberal economic warfare and cynically maneuvering back in to promise a bandaid for the bullet wound they inflicted on Ukraine to encircle an enemy nation, is a force for good in this situation???
You seem to simply use fascism as a synonym for bad without even understanding what it is.
Projection for 200, Chuck. Are you implying that the American empire, currently emmiserating and genociding the 3rd world based on a white supremacist agenda, the very fucking inspiration for Hitlers lebensraum... isnt fascist???
The "West" is a white supremacist construct too based on an alliance of colonial powers btw.
The great irony is you're so caught up in this baseless rhetoric believing that you're fighting fascists that you end up supporting a textbook fascist government
Projection for 300, Chuck! You think Russia is doing imperialist lebensraum like Germany or America before it so you project the entire bloody ideological superstructure and endgoal of the west onto it (which at least you recognize as evil) and thus somehow mental gymnasticize yourself into supporting the a war pushed by the actual set of powers who performed such imperialist ventures.
All in all you're conflating peace negotiations with surrender because it will "reward Russias bad behavior" (paternalistic ahistorical fascist nonsense) and therefore unironically doing a "War is peace." Because you are a demonic warmonger who wants nothing but rivers of Slavic blood and money for Ratheon.
Hexbear.net was created during the middle of the George Floyd protests after r/chapotraphouse was banned. We have always hated cops and many of us participated in those protests. There are numerous emojis on our site hating cops including
spoiler
and many many more
George Floyd was brutally murdered by a pig who upheld white supremacy and all the other cops watched in support. It's part of an ongoing reality of cops murdering innocent people just because they can. Cops are an inherent part of the white supremacist institution that is the American government. You will not find anyone on Hexbear who thought George Floyd should "stop resisting".
Woah there Z Grover. You do realize not all fascists are Nazis, right?
Russia is the lesser evil huh? Kinda sounds like you do like them, otherwise I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you'd have to do to support them in conquering Ukraine.
Yeah the Wagner Group and their enablers can fuck off.
Or are you saying that you drank Russia's Kool Aid of their justification for their invasion of Ukraine?
Edit: Apparently the comment this was a reply to isn't here anymore or this got slapped onto the wrong comment somehow? But this was a reply to someone saying that Nazis don't get to use self defense or something close to it.
deleted by creator
Suggesting the defender in a war should just stop fighting, or that helping them is bad because if they did not have the ability to defend themselves, they'd quickly be unable to fight and the war would end with their defeat, is not anti-war. It is appeasement, and that is ultimately pro-war, because it creates a situation in which starting wars of aggression can benefit the ones who start them, which inevitably leads to more wars being started. To be against war, in the long term, one must support a situation in which starting wars is against the self-interest of those in the position to do so, and one of the clearest ways to do that is to try to ensure that those who begin wars of conquest or other such aggression, lose them.
Stopping wars is actually starting wars, I am very smart
Where did I claim to be smart? I am merely pointing out that, if you give those who start wars what they want, they have an incentive to go and start more of them.
Considering your takes, I certainly didn't assume you were smart, although I don't think intelligence is a qualitative measurement.
In terms of wars, you do realize that wars are started for different reasons, right? The material realities that start wars differ vastly from war to war. Also, if the USA is any example, losing a war does not do anything to stop a country from starting another one.
OMG YESSS ICE DRAGON COOL!!!
Anyways, you have the right idea about it being unjust that those who start wars of aggression reap benefits from starting them. That is why it is best for both Russia and Ukraine to resolve this using peaceful negotiations, as the reason why america is pouring military hardware into the latter is to bolster its own war of aggression against Russia motivated by cynical geopolitical interests.
This current conflict has a long and bloody history stretching way back from 2014 till now. It is called the "Russo-Ukranian war" and started with the Euromaidan incident when the EU used far right groups to antidemocratically depose a pro-Russian Ukranian president and plant someone who is more aligned with their agenda so that they could put pressure on Russia, as Russia was starting to get unfriendly towards the American trading bloc.
As such, the true nature of this conflict is an awful proxy war between Russia and NATO (america), where innocents suffer and the rich get richer.
Therefore, I think we would both agree that it is not good for america to send more weapons to Ukraine as this would be fulfilling america's own selfish geopolitical interests using the lives of innocent Ukranians.
Nice profile too btw
While in principle I do get the idea that a negotiated peace is preferable to a situation where the two parties in a conflict simply fight themselves until one side physically cannot, I do not see a way in which that can reasonably be done in the case of this conflict without one side being beaten militarily, because the goals of each side are not comparable. Russia has been trying to annex territory from Ukraine, but as far as I have seen, Ukraine has not sought to take land from Russia (if you take only the current phase of the conflict, one might suggest that they are seeking to retake Crimea, but as you yourself pointed out, the conflict itself has been ongoing for longer than the current large scale war has been going on, and as such, even if the Ukrainians managed to take it somehow, that would not represent the addition of new territory not in their possession before the conflict started). The problem this presents is that, if one were to negotiate a "white peace", that is to say, just put the border back to how it was before the conflict started, then that effectively represents Ukraine accomplishing pretty much all of its major goals and Russia none of it's own. As such, Russia has no particular reason to accept this, unless physically forced to by virtue of military defeat, which would kind of defeat the point of a negotiated settlement in the first place as that would simply represent a Ukrainian military victory anyway. But on the flipside, ceeding any of the disputed land to Russia represents a situation where Russia wins- maybe not anything like as big a win as they would like, but they would in that scenario have started a large scale war (regardless of how exactly the conflict itself began, Russia did take the step of turning it from what it was into a full-scale war, by invading Ukraine), and then ultimately gained territory from it, which is exactly the sort of precedent that we've already established needs to be avoided. What then, is left for such a settlement to be?
Just going to reply to myself here, as I did not finish what I was thinking earlier (I was on my lunch break and as I like to take time to reply to these things, I ran out of time, my apologies). In any case, what I was trying to say is, that I do not think a mutually satisfactory peace settlement can be achieved here, due to the sides involved having completely exclusive objectives. As such, I see three options for how the war could end:
I think most will agree that the last one is a bad outcome, due to the result of a long war with no resolution. I personally do not believe a Russian victory is acceptable either, for the reasons I talked about earlier, about rewarding aggression. Therefore, the only remaining option I see as plausible is a Ukrainian victory, therefore I take the stance that Ukraine should win. If Ukraine were to win, I further hold that it is preferable that they do so quickly and decisively, as it is better that the war be resolved with the minimum number of casualties, on either side, and a war of attrition does not do that by definition. Ukraine does not currently seem to have the resources required to achieve this, given that their current counter-offensive operations are proceeding relatively slowly. I therefore do support giving them those resources, and more, if they need it, and security guarantees afterwards- not because I am in any way in favor of war, but because I honestly believe that doing so is required in order for it end as quickly as realistically possible with the lowest chance of a similar war breaking out again soon after.
I imagine that you and others in this thread will disagree with the premises I take, or the conclusions I draw from them, but I hope at least that I've been able to make my reasoning clear on how I arrive at the conclusion that I do.
Why is it so critical to punish Russian aggression? It’s not like it’s the only aggressive state around, and definitely not the worst? Hasn’t the fact that not a single official responsible for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen been punished a bigger factor in rewarding aggression?
Id say that those officials should be or should have been punished, the fact that they have not been is not a factor in how I feel that the current situation should be dealt with. "Other people got away with it" is not an excuse
I’m not saying it as an excuse, I’m trying to point out that aggression has been rewarded before this. You’re arguing that it is critical to punish Russia to send a message to other states that aggression won’t succeed but I’m saying that ship has already sailed
That would make it even more critical though, because it would not enough to reinforce the status quo, it would be necessary to demonstrate that things that once were considered acceptable on the international stage no longer are.
By that logic isn’t it far more critical to punish the truly bad actors? George bush killed way more people than have been killed in Russia's invasion. What message does it send that he’s allowed to roam free?
Oh I have no problem at all with having George Bush see justice for his actions, but this thread wasn't exactly about him, it was about the whole Ukraine/Russia situation. Were it a thread about some sort of trial or such for him, I'd absolutely be advocating turning him over.
Why is it more critical to punish Russia than to punish bad actors in the US?
Because Russia is fighting a war, with the resulting casualties and destruction, right now. The faster they are stopped, the less damage is ultimately caused. George Bush, for the example you used earlier, is not currently doing this. So while he's still someone who has gotten away with things he should not have done, time is less of essence in his case, at the moment. It's like asking why it is more critical to attempt to stop an attempted murder in progress, then it is to work on investigating the one that someone else committed last week. Again though, the relative importance of them is not really relevant here anyway, because the discussion was about Ukraine and Russia in the first place. There are a great many bad actors in the world, many of which have faced no justice for what they have done, to include quite a few in the US, yes, and one could ask that same question about any one of them, whenever one of the others comes up.
I guess what I’m trying to get across here is that it’s very hard for me to trust that any punishment of Russia will result in any long term change to behaviors of other bad actor if the nations doing the punishing are completely unable to apply justice across the board. It’s a lot easier for the US to send Bush to The Hague than Putin you know?
Other bad actors like Saudi or Azerbaijan are also currently being rewarded by the same people calling for punishment of Russia. What message does that send to future tyrants? That as long as you’re useful to the west we will ignore your crimes?
UA, and by that I mean its state, has been a naked pawn since 2014, responding to Western interests to stoke and prolong civil war by the Russian border, target ethnic Russians with discrimination and violence (and Roma, and LGBTQ+ people, etc), and generally toy with joining NATO, a highly aggressive anti-Russian military organization.
The dominant Western propaganda narrative is to try to get everyone to forget the breathless reporting their media outlets did on Ukraine from 2013-2022 and to instead use absurd little terms like, "unprovoked invasion", which I would guess is also where the idea of UA being simply defensive comes from. Yes, they were invaded by Russia, but they've also been ratcheting up pressure on Russia for a decade through various cynical moves, beginning with a coup against a government that was becoming slightly friendlier with Russia. The most notable events just prior to the RF invading was a huge ramping up of shelling of the Donbas, including civilian population centers.
Anyways, yes it is bad to keep pushing the "escalate and fight to the last Ukrainian button". It would be much better if Ukraine were forced to negotiate peace and were not acting as a pawn against Russia rather than a state protecting its own people.
I'd like Ukrainians to be alive and not in a war.
Wow I didn't know russian shills followed us to lemmy
Its not nice to call ppl shills m8
Lmao, I'm sorry I hurt the poor fascists feelings
Why r they fascist?
You guys seem to support fasciZt governments.
Inb4 America/Ukraine are the real fascists.
How is wanting a war to end without more innocent lives being lost "supporting" a fascist government?
If Russia wanted to end the war so bad they could just leave. Ukraine doesn't have that option.
Russia invaded Ukraine to gain new territory. If you want the war to end as it stands now, then you're okay with giving up land and the people they've kidnapped from it to a fascist regime in a war of aggression. That's supporting a fascist government.
Okay but instead of making infantile suggestions that no one with any sort of adult mind think is even possible, including the US and Ukrainian Militaries, why don’t we talk about actually likely ways to end the war? Why are the two choices perpetual war and unilateral surrender? It sounds an awful lot like you want to fight “to the last Ukrainian”, to me.
Hmm, seems like you're arguing in good faith.
I never said those are the only two choices, but every peace deal that Russia has come to the table with either includes ceding large amounts of territory or giving up control over their government. Do you think the Ukrainian people would find any of that acceptable after everything Russia has put them through?
Sounds an awful lot like you just want fascist Russia to conquer Ukraine.
We may have varying definitions of their territory, or maybe we’re looking at different proposed peace accords. Donetsk and Luhansk are recognized by Ukraine under the Minsk II accords as autonomous zones, contained within Ukraine, but not subject to its laws. So, if that’s what you’re referring to, that isn’t Ukrainian territory anymore than Turkish Kurdistan is Turkeys territory. I support the right of people to self determination, up to and including the right to declare autonomy.
If that’s not what you’re referring to, then I must be behind, because that’s the last peace accord that I heard of.
Ok, but how is supporting a peace deal to facilitate the outcome of russian forces withdrawing a fascist position?
That all depends on what you'd consider to be acceptable terms of a peace deal. Is it a deal that rewards the aggressors for their aggression?
No, the heads of NATO, Ukraine and Russia shouldn't be rewarded for their acts of violence against the people of Russia and Ukraine. All sides should withdraw from the territories in which they are not welcome by the people.
Also Russia didn't invade Ukraine to "gain new territory", do you know when the war started?
(Furthermore its important to clarify that although Russia is a neoliberal hellpit, NATO, using Ukraine as a meat shield for their interests, is way, way worse, literally headed by one of the most evil countries that ever existed: the USA, as such, it is foolish to trust that anything they do in this situation will help the people of Ukraine, including dump military hardware into the region for disposal and testing)
🙄 Yes, we all know Russia started a thinly veiled proxy war in 2014 when the Ukrainian people voted in favor of a western friendly government, and then Russia escalated it into a full blown war when that wasn't getting them the influence over Ukraine that they wanted.
What I don't understand, though, is why a bunch of self proclaimed communists are so in favor of expanding the global influence of a post-fascist government. Aren't communists supposed to be diametrically opposed to fascism? Their wartime Z symbol is essentially a half drawn swastika, like how do you not see it?
Being in favor of China, as they are at least communists in rhetoric, I get. But really, modern day Russia? Marx would be ashamed.
Your Ukranian "people":
(its mostly fascist paramilitaries funded by god knows who)
Your "voting":
(there was no democractic referendum held to oust the president)
Also, the west itself is a white supremacist fascist entity who went to Ukraine in 2014 to put pressure on Russia by cutting off potential allies. They are not the good guys.
Again, how are peace talks and settling matters via negotiation being "in favor of a fascist government"? Why are you so in favor of expanding the global influence of a fascist organisation (NATO) via the continuation of the war? Why are you opposed to the people of the Donbas being free from the horrors of civil war at the hands of the Ukranian military? Did you know that the majority of people in the Donbas are ethnic russians, and are pro-separatist? Did you know that this is the reason why Ukraine started shelling the fuck out of them and decided to sic their Nazi dogs on them in 2014? Why are you in favor of continuing a bloody war when a mutually beneficial agreement for all sides, even with respect to pre war conditions, can be reached from peaceful negotiation?
This is projection, the left has consistently been anti war this entire time, yet liberals are on the side of outright fascists in the ukranian military being given experimental weapons when they are not outright denying they exist.
You're not the left. The left hates you. You're just bloodthirsty edgelords being astroturfed by Russian paid trolls.
You're not at all anti-war either, you just want Russia to win the war. You're the person watching George Floyd getting choked to death here and says "well it's his fault for resisting."
The only thing separating you from actual fascists is username pronouns.
Projection for $100, Chuck. We're not the ones advocating for the global interests of white supremacist fascist nations in their genocide of the third world.
"ERRYONE I DONT LIKE IS M-MUH RUSSIAN BOTERINOS!!!" I hope you're memeing because this is going into the realm of unhinged conspiracy theories otherwise.
the lack of nuance you have about this situation truly reveals that you're just a puppet mouthpiece for NATO's fascist, warmongering propaganda to further its interests in the region through bloody conflict.
Imagine seething this much over pronouns lmao
And again, how are peace talks and settling matters via negotiation being "in favor of a fascist government"? Why are you so in favor of expanding the global influence of a fascist organisation (NATO) via the continuation of the war? Why are you opposed to the people of the Donbas being free from the horrors of civil war at the hands of the Ukranian military? Did you know that the majority of people in the Donbas are ethnic russians, and are pro-separatist? Did you know that this is the reason why Ukraine started shelling the fuck out of them and decided to sic their Nazi dogs on them in 2014? Why are you in favor of continuing a bloody war when a mutually beneficial agreement for all sides, even with respect to pre war conditions, can be reached from peaceful negotiation?
Nobody actually thinks russia is a force for good in this situation, its just that an end of hostilities for the drafting of a peace agreement is much better for the people.
Well that's quite the wall of text.
Talk about lacking nuance. You can criticize NATO for plenty, but calling it fascist while ignoring the rise of literal Russian style fascism is telling. You seem to simply use fascism as a synonym for bad without even understanding what it is. Therefore everything you don't like (i.e. anything western) is automatically labeled fascist, and anything that is actual literal fascism but anti-west is somehow not fascism.
The war isn't NATO vs Russia, it's Ukraine vs Russia. Just because NATO can gain from a weakened Russia doesn't mean they are responsible for the war or are responsible for dragging it on. Nobody wanted this war, this is purely Russia's doing. Just because Ukraine has some marginal neo-nazi groups doesn't mean the country is run by Nazis.
The great irony is you're so caught up in this baseless rhetoric believing that you're fighting fascists that you end up supporting a textbook fascist government engaging in the very same imperial conquest that you accuse the west of.
I can call it a fascist organization because it is one. For the 100th time, I know Russia is a neoliberal state with a Nazi problem too, however I am not going to fall for state department propaganda and place the majority of the responsibility for this mess solely on Russia to minimize the gross involvement of the imperialist white supremacist settler-colonial extractive project that is NATO. It was a bad move of them to escalate tensions, but it was even worse for NATO to come in and destabilize the fucking region in the first place in 2014 with euromaidan and actively oppose peaceful negotiations as the war drags on and hundreds of thousands of ordinary people like you or I suffer and die in a hell on earth. Can you understand this?
Are you fucking kidding me? What are you even talking about? You didn't read a single word of the post you are replying to and are just parroting off whatever talking points Murdoch gave you to manufacture consent for NATOs proxy war.
Are you actually saying that the West, after first and foremost destroying the region, causing human suffering on an untold scale, in the 90s with neoliberal economic warfare and cynically maneuvering back in to promise a bandaid for the bullet wound they inflicted on Ukraine to encircle an enemy nation, is a force for good in this situation???
Projection for 200, Chuck. Are you implying that the American empire, currently emmiserating and genociding the 3rd world based on a white supremacist agenda, the very fucking inspiration for Hitlers lebensraum... isnt fascist???
The "West" is a white supremacist construct too based on an alliance of colonial powers btw.
Projection for 300, Chuck! You think Russia is doing imperialist lebensraum like Germany or America before it so you project the entire bloody ideological superstructure and endgoal of the west onto it (which at least you recognize as evil) and thus somehow mental gymnasticize yourself into supporting the a war pushed by the actual set of powers who performed such imperialist ventures.
All in all you're conflating peace negotiations with surrender because it will "reward Russias bad behavior" (paternalistic ahistorical fascist nonsense) and therefore unironically doing a "War is peace." Because you are a demonic warmonger who wants nothing but rivers of Slavic blood and money for Ratheon.
Hexbear.net was created during the middle of the George Floyd protests after r/chapotraphouse was banned. We have always hated cops and many of us participated in those protests. There are numerous emojis on our site hating cops including
spoiler
George Floyd was brutally murdered by a pig who upheld white supremacy and all the other cops watched in support. It's part of an ongoing reality of cops murdering innocent people just because they can. Cops are an inherent part of the white supremacist institution that is the American government. You will not find anyone on Hexbear who thought George Floyd should "stop resisting".
🚨 ATTENTION 🚨
Your account has been flagged for bot-like activity.
Please review the Posting Policy Bulletin and post hog for account verification.
This is an automated message. If you believe you have received this in error, click here to opt out of future communications.
Removed by mod
Woah there Z Grover. You do realize not all fascists are Nazis, right?
Russia is the lesser evil huh? Kinda sounds like you do like them, otherwise I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you'd have to do to support them in conquering Ukraine.
They are getting paid.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, because a war of defense is the same as a war of offence. /S
Helping an ally defend themselves from an aggressor is based
Saying they should fend for themselves is fucked.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Yeah the Wagner Group and their enablers can fuck off.
Or are you saying that you drank Russia's Kool Aid of their justification for their invasion of Ukraine?
Edit: Apparently the comment this was a reply to isn't here anymore or this got slapped onto the wrong comment somehow? But this was a reply to someone saying that Nazis don't get to use self defense or something close to it.