• Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    China: sends Russia six helicopters (before the war), some children's toys, a box of consumer-grade hunting scopes, and metal. They are the bad guys who are prolonging the war.

    NATO: sends Ukraine weapons and military vehicles worth more than China's entire military budget, and provides training and logistics support. They are the good guys trying to end the war.

    • Awoo [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      The liberals only read the titles and then come straight to the comment sections so they don't actually realise any of this unless you spell it out for them.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does your definition of "attack" include locking people in a church and burning them alive? How about sponsoring Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to murder and rape people for seaking a language? Shelling cities and civilians in defiance of international cease fire treaties?

        • figaro@lemdro.id
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don't mean to get in an argument, because that isn't at all productive.

          I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?

          • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?

            If Ukrainian neo-Nazis hadn't trapped ethnic Russians in a building and burned them alive, would Russia have invaded?

            My point is: there are no good guys in this conflict. Just two bad guys duking it out, with regular schmucks like you and me getting murdered for no reason. Anything that prolongs the conflict is bad.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              ·
              1 year ago

              For the record - I agree that burning people alive in a building is bad, and war should be avoided if possible.

              You didn't really answer my question though. Why do the resistance groups exist in the first place?

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                We've got a document that lays out the timeline in some detail, but I can't find it right now.

                The short version is that this is a continuation of a very, very long conflict between the western powers and Russia for control of Russia's resources. Like in a broad sense this geopolitical conflict as been going on for hundreds of years - Europe and now the USA want access to Russia's resources and to do that they have to get rid of the government currently in charge of Russia. In the past this was all kinds of great power bullshit, Napoleon's attempt to invade Moscow. Then it was the Russian civil war, where all the Western powers invaded Russia to try to stop the Reds, then WWII when the Nazis and their allies wanted to conquer everything east of them, exterminate or enslave the Slavs, and do Westward Expansion 2.0: Eastward Edition. Then the Cold War, where NATO was formed to counter and eventually destroy the Eastern Block. Well, 1991 happened, the USSR was destroyed, A few coups and murders and the shock doctrine ensured that the capitalists could loot everything, but ultimately the West didn't get the complete control of Russian territory and resources they wanted. Too many former Soviet Oligarchs and gangsters got in the way and control of the region stayed more or less in local hands - Russian Oligarchs in Russia, Ukrainian Oligarchs in Ukraine, and so on. NATO didn't disband after 1991, and didn't let Russia join when Putin tried a few times,because NATO's purpose is conquest of Russia and they hadn't pulled that off yet. NATO started annexing countries and moving it's borders towards Russia, forward positioning troops and weapons, and gradually encircling Russia on it's populous Western borders. When NATO started talking about moving in to Georgia the Russian's responded, invaded Georgia, and put an end to that. At some point later NATO decided to move on Ukraine, take control, and use it as a proxy to weaken Russia. They used the same tactic by supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan decades prior, and they'd used it in the middle east and few other places. The basic program is - destabilize a country, flood it with weapons, then let their neighbors bleed themselves dry trying to contain the insurgency. In pursuit of this NATO deployed a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis they'd saved after WWII for exactly this purpose and were gradually able to expand their influence in the country. 2013, the President of Ukraine doesn't want to sign a shitty deal with Europe both because it would fuck over Ukraine and it would fuck over Ukraine's trade with Russia, and the Nazis, almost entirely headquartered in Western Ukraine, use this as an excuse to take control of popular unrest and stage a coup. It gets nasty, Ukrainian Nationalists burn a bunch of Russian speaking Ukrainians to death, they throw the president out, the new coup government immediately passes laws making the previously legal Russian language illegal. Out East in the regions where most Ukrainians speak Russian, they see a bunch of Nazis who want them exterminated couping the government, they see the new coup government passing laws against their language, they say "Fuck this, we know what comes next" and take up arms demanding that Kiev grant them autonomy - some government autonomy, guarantees on their right to speak their language and protect their culture, basic shit. Kiev says no, tries to send the army in to Donbass to crush them, the army tells Kiev "Fuck you". Kiev isn't giving up so they arm all the Nazis and send them in to Donbass and they start murdering people. This turns in to a civil war. During the civil war NATO moves in. They start re-structuring, training, and arming the Ukrainian military loyal to Kiev. They stockpile all kinds of weapons and shit. The Nazis are rotating back from the front lines with combat experience and are getting integrated in to army units while their civilian Nazi counterparts are getting more and more control over western Ukraine's government, civic institutions, and culture. This goes on for years, Ukrainians kill thousands of Ukrainians. Meanwhile Russia, who doesn't want any of this shit happening in their neighborhood, is trying to get some kind of peace negotiations going to stop the conflict and stabilize Ukraine before it falls apart and turns in to a failed state. Well, Ukraine and a bunch of NATO goverments say yes, we'll talk, lets resolve this, then the Ukrainian Nazis break all the ceasefires and shitcan the peace talks. Happens twice, the accords were called Minsk I and Minsk II. We later find out that Germany and France, who were acting as restaurants of the peace talks, never had any intention of fulfilling the peace conditions and were just buying time to arm Ukraine. Eventually it's 2020 or something. Ukrainians are sick of this, they don't want to be at war with their own countrymen, they don't want to get dragged in to war with Russia because of Nazi psychos, so they vote for Zelensky. Zelensky's a very charismatic guy, well known from television, speaks Ukrainian and Russia. He runs on a peace platform, says he's going to uphold the cease fire and start negotiations. Well, once he takes office he goes out to the front and tells the guys at the front to shot shelling Donbass. The guys who are running the Front are Nazi fanatics, they tell him he's not in charge and he can go fuck himself and they keep shelling. So now Zelensky knows how Ukraine really works, he starts working with NATO and the Nationalists as basically a cheer-leader for Kiev and Galacia's agenda. Doesn't really have any power but he looks good on TV. This whole thing finally comes to a head when someone decides that the Ukrainian army, with all it's NATO training and equipment and guns and NATO provided Nazis, is ready to go crush Donbass. There's a big build-up - Ukraine is mobilizing it's army to go in to the east of the country and fight the Donbass republics plus whatever Specops guys Russia has sent in there. Russia is mobilizing part of it's army at the Ukrainian border and making threatening noises.

                Now, it's February of 2022. Russia has it's troops on Ukraine's border. Ukrainian troops are moving East in to Donbass. Putin is making threatening noises, but no one thinks he'll actually pull the trigger and cross the border. Well, for whatever reason, and it's still unclear what he was thinking, he pulls the trigger. He claims that he's doing it to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians from the Banderite Nazis who intend to genocide them (probably in the driving them from their homes sense rather than the extermination of all men, women, and children sense but who knows with Nazis?). That might even be true. But other reasons are that he was finally sick of putting up with NATOs bullshit after decades of post-cold-war hostility, or he had a bad understanding of the situation and thought he could win a decisive victory with that swift attack on Kiev, or maybe he thought people in Ukraine were more angry with their government than they were and would demand some kind of end of hostilities? Who knows, high level commanders and presidents aren't always very bright and aren't always getting good intel. Whatever happened, Russia made us all look like idiots by invading (pretty much no one, including me, thought he'd actually do it), and now there was a hot war between NATO forces and Russian forces, except everyone inside NATO pretends that it's between Ukraine and Russia.

                So, that's the very, very, very short, basically no details, rough sketch version of what lead up to the war. I didn't even mention stuff like the activities of Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and the US, or all of Russia's security concerns, or the weird fucked up relationship between the Russiand government and the US government, or how Russia didn't really invade Crimea because the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and tons of support personnel were already stationed in Crimea so they really just changed the flags, or the role of propaganda in NATOs decisions on which weapons to send and which weapons to withhold, or what Trump's trade war bullshit likely had to do with all this, or a trillion other things.

                Suffice to say, there's a lot of history behind this conflict. And since it's very unlikely either side will definitively win there will probably be more wars in this on-going geopolitical struggle between whoever is in charge of the west and whoever is in charge of Russia in the future, even if NATO and the Russian federation both collapse tomorrow. There's no way we're going to make it through the 21st century without intense wars over the vast unexploited resources of Siberia.

                Either way, that's the very short summary.

                • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  average leftist meme

                  but 100-com, this is basically the backbone of a potential essay on why we are against NATO in this conflict and why Putin isn't Hitler reincarnated

                  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I refuse to engage with any explanation of a complex historical or Geopolitical situation that cannot be boiled down to "Russia bad".

                  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So you're not actually interested in learning anything.

                    How does that square up with you thinking your worldview is correct?

                    Like how do you make that work?

                  • Flaps [he/him]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Please do. No investigation no right to speak

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                ·
                1 year ago

                In 2014, the Ukrainian government was overthrown and the new government shifted towards Western alignment while banning opposition parties. Many people in Ukraine, especially in the east, have cultural ties to Russia and disagreed with the change, but were left with no means of having their voices heard because they were cut out of the democratic process, and that's why the resistance groups exist in the first place.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, by argue I meant something along the lines of "have an upset and angry discussion." I disagree with some of the premise of what he said though, so I am going to push back on that.

      • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        history started the day russia invaded and nothing happened in ukraine between then and the collapse of the USSR.

        • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good point never thought of it like that before. I love Bill Clinton, Neoliberalism is radical. Did you know he played the saxophone? So cool. Slava USA

        • figaro@lemdro.id
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think my question was misunderstood.

          Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.

          I asked "who attacked who" because to me, it seems pretty clear that Russia, a dictatorship whose government has a history of human rights violations and disregard for human life, is doing a bad thing when they invade a neighboring country and start shooting missiles at civilian homes on a daily basis for a year and half.

          Could you explain how this is not a clear "Russia doing bad thing, we should help Ukraine" situation?

          • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            NATO is mostly responsible for the dead Ukrainians. Ukraine has no reason to fight this war. If they lose, fine, the Russian part gets renamed and a higher minimum wage. Only rich assholes lose out. If Ukraine wins they get dead sons and burned schools but the US oil companies are happy.

            It is pretty clear Ukraine shouldn't be fighting this war for the US companies.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              ·
              1 year ago

              What percentage of Ukrainians support defending their country?

              Should it be their decision whether to keep fighting?

              • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                If it were up to Ukrainians to collectively decide whether or not to continue the conflict, Zelensky would not have canceled the elections for his position later this year.

                • figaro@lemdro.id
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for elections to be held during periods of martial law, which was declared at the start of the war.

                  If there is ever a good time to declare martial law, being invaded by a neighboring country might qualify as a justifiable time.

                  In any case, it's constitutional, but Ukrainian political process isn't what we are here to talk about.

                  Fundamentally, I agree with you - If the majority of Ukrainians were to decide they don't want the war to continue, the war should stop. The number show, however, that the people are not ready to give up.

                  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The constitution of one of the most corrupt states in Europe has a mechanism whereby the executive can arbitrarily suspend elections?

                    Shocking.

              • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dead people don't get a vote. People lining up to die are even less trust worthy about their choices.

                • figaro@lemdro.id
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  While humorous, that isn't actually how polls work. I'd suggest looking up the statistics. The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.

                  Does that mean that the majority of Ukrainians support fighting the war for the sake of US companies? Or could there be something else they are fighting for?

                  • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They are fighting for honor glory and pride. However they will die for it and get none. While all the worst people in mu country will buy a new jetski off the profits they made from the ordeal

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.

                    Russian-supported polls can't be trusted, but the targets of 8 years of pogroms definitely aren't be coerced by Ukraine!

          • Redcat [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ukraine to defend themselves.

            Do you think the people of eastern ukraine have a right to defend themselves?

          • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I understood. It's an unserious question, so I gave an unserious answer. China isn't militarily supporting Russia. They sent some kids toys and the same raw materials they exported everywhere anyway.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, I see what happened. I didn't address the China part of your original question because I actually agree with you there. They aren't militarily supporting Russia based on this article. I don't see why China would do that, since it wouldn't really benefit them.

              I was addressing part 2 of your comment, where you implied that NATO is doing a bad thing by supporting Ukraine. Unless I misunderstood - I assumed "They are the good guys trying to end the war" was sarcasm.

    • tfc@lemmy.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes because giving some one the ability to defend their country, and supporting an invasion have the same moral implications

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Liberals taking pride in being so heavily propagandised is the same as workers taking pride in being overworked and underpaid.

        • ElHexo
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          deleted by creator