I think, for example, that most alt-right types oppose the war either because of chauvinistic beliefs about American boys and American blood and treasure being spent on foreigners, or because they would like to work together with Russia to counter China and think a war with them hurts the white struggle against the eastern hordes. No one on hexbear would defend either of those positions.
It needs to be more specific than "both of you are against continuing the war." Just like it wouldn't be fair for me to accuse you of being alt- right because you and them both agree that there weren't WMDs in Iraq and that that invasion was sold on false pretenses. You might both technically agree but it would be missing the point.
It's theories about how spheres of influence work, that Russia has a right to take over Ukraine, or at least override it politically. Very much similar to Kissinger's Great power politics in the days of the USSR. It's somewhat different than the Russian right which is their divine right to Empire, over the Ukrainians and the Poles and Slavic countries in general. The ideologues Ivan Ilyin and Karl Schmidt influence that part.
But notably, both parts believe that there's a place that Russia must dominate in Europe, and that other great powers must not interfere there.
Leftists also are influenced by these theories, especially when they remember the reaches of the Iron Curtain far into Central Europe. The USSR had a history of intervening into the politics of its satellite states. Notably in Hungary when there were democratic protests, they sent in tanks to quell the uprising.
This theory echoes in 2014 when the Ukrainians changed their government, and Russia invades and annexes Crimea. Many on the far left and far right see the massive protests as creeping American influence that does not belong in the region. They fear NATO expansion as it is a threat to Russia; In the west it's Russia itself, and in Russia, it's Russian greatness in Empire.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Liberals don't believe that countries exert influence on other countries around them? You think Joe Biden objects to the concept of spheres of influence? You brought up Kissinger, you don't think US foreign policy is operating under the logic of realpolitik? I'm not sure what the alternative is to believing that countries act to pursue their interests in other countries. That just sounds like a description of the concept of foreign policy.
notably in Hungary when there were democratic protests
You’re talking about the fascist uprising where they went around marking the houses of Jews and Communists for extermination, like only a decade after the Soviets saved the world from Hitler?
How is being pro russia and wanting war to end in any way compatible though? They invaded Ukraine. They literally started a war. That's a pretty disgusting deflection tbh
Russia started a war. Ukraine has two choices. Surrender and end the bloodshed, or fight tooth and nail and pour more innocent people into the meat grinder and then surrender. There is not a third option. Obviously they should choose the former.
NATO/US started the war when they couped the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014, and when the US installed regime started bombing civilians in the Donbass
Where did I say any of that? I was simply correcting the poster about who the original instigators of the conflict were, and pointing out the fact that the banderite regime has been killing innocent Ukrainians for years, history did not begin in February 2022
Acknowledging the US's role in creating the conflict and the crimes of the regime they installed is not the same as supporting Russia's actions
We’re just not keeping our head in the sand here. Ukraine is not taking back Crimea, or even the Donbas. The counteroffensive failed horribly. Cheering for more bloodshed isn’t going to make a better outcome in the end.
"cheering for more bloodshed." Are you telling on yourself? You act like a counteroffensive is supposed to be fast and easy. It's not, war is bloody and deadly and Russia is not going to call for peace until they achieve their objective of overthrowing the Ukrainian government or achieving a peace deal where they can keep Ukraine's economic sectors
You act like peace deals are the same thing as calls for peace. They can still have peace deals to appear they want peace when they started the war in the first place back in 2014
You act as if a peace deal isn't literally someone calling for peace.
Lmao what with the "infiltrators" that cannot be proven? The two oblasts have a large population that is ethnically russian. When a government that had spoken of cleansing russian influence comes into power, it is pretty understandable that that would foment separatism. At best we can prove Russia provided financial aid to separatists, and then later stepped in and negotiate Minsk I and II, which were both broken by Ukraine
Yall calling for the continuation of the war are telling on yourselves. Otherwise you'd fucking be fighting rather than advocating behind a computer for others to die. Too scared to go to Spain and fight the fascists?
Oh man the the US union should've just given up the civil war instead of continuing the fighting. Think of all the good Americans that will die. Let's just let the confederates secede instead of having a bloody conflict
You act like a counteroffensive is supposed to be fast and easy.
It's September. Their window to make any gains in their counteroffensive has passed. Now they have to fight against the weather on top of the Russians.
The only progress the counteroffensive has made is in destroying Western materiel and getting scores of Ukrainians killed. They haven’t even reached the second defensive line yet. The total amount of territory retaken is like 100 meters of farmland. I’m calling it a failure because it is a failure.
"Ukraine should surrender so that they can spare their civilian and combatant lives to Russia which totally won't abuse their land and people as they've done in the past"
Ukraine should surrender now while people still have families to come home to, instead of propagating senseless death.
You're also just making russian demands up? At no point during this war has Russia sought to annex the entirety of Ukraine, which it seems to be whate you are implying they will do.
Please try to remain in reality.
You're linking me to the Woodrow Wilson institute? Lmao get the fuck out of here. Whats next, radio free Russia? If you want a serious answer to what Russia claims just look at what demands they have made - these are the demands negotiations revolve around
There were pogroms and mass murders at the ground level and there were laws targeting Russian speakers from the governmental level. The weapons Trump was impeached for tying political favors to were being used against resistance militias. They were being used to bomb facilities built in the soviet era that pump hot water into people's homes as the local method of heating during the winter. They locked over a hundred people in a building and burned them alive in it. They broke multiple treaties with Russia in order to do all of this. This was the lead up to the war.
Do you think we’re in charge of the Russian military? The war is going to end eventually one way or another. We might as well push for the path that preserves Ukrainian lives.
Are we in charge of the Ukrainian military? Not that it really matters, but still.
Russia can unilaterally end the conflict. Ukraine cannot (yet). Calling on Ukrainians to surrender while they still want to defend themselves is cowardice. I would rather support their continued struggle.
You just insulted me with the sole thrust being that I'm not in your echo chamber.
I'm referencing real world events. Do you not believe Ukraine broke both Minsk I and II as a lead up to the war? Do you not have google?
e: And what's this weasel bullshit where you slipped in 'Ukrainians' like I'm going after the citizens and not the government? The Ukrainian people haven't had a legitimate government since 2014 when the one they actually elected themselves was deposed in a far right western backed coup.
Do you not believe Ukraine broke both Minsk I and II as a lead up to the war?
What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.
Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory. The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.
With that said, Minsk I saw violations on both sides and fell apart for that reason. Minsk II was fundamentally similar to Minsk I and thus was going to struggle to escape the same fate. While the Russians claimed that Ukraine violated the terms of Minsk II, they also claimed that they were not a party to Minsk II and thus were not violating it with their own troop buildup. Of course, they also claim that Ukraine's supposed violations of Minsk II were justification for further Russian invasion, despite claiming to not be a party to the treaty. That's some duplicitous behavior and, again, if I were in Ukraine I would not want the Russian military in my country.
All that said, the point that Minsk I and II are not justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They sure as hell were not justification for the initial invasion of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk (not existing yet during those) and they're not justification of Russia's continued invasion deeper into Ukraine.
What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.
Lol well that's just a fucking lie. Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion. Do you have a selective memory or are you just fucking ignorant of the entire history of this conflict and should therefore shut the fuck up?
Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory.
They didn't invade; they were already there. The legitimate government of Ukraine leased the naval base to them in Crimea and when the western backed coup government wanted to revoke the lease they simply stayed. Accuse them of squatting.
The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.
Well that's just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don't count if they came after a war?
Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion
Do you understand that there's a difference between hosting weapons in your country and (let's say) invading another country and (for example) launching missile strikes at civilians? (And can i just say? That Wikipedia page just keeps going and going.)
Let's also not forget about Russia continuously threatening to nuke Ukraine without commensurate nuclear threat from the other side. (They just keep doing it!)
Really, if we go back to the start of this (the pre-Crimea days), Ukraine had two futures. In one, it grew closer to Russia and came under the Russian sphere of influence. In the other, it grew closer to the West likewise. It was leaning in the direction of the West, but when Russia attacked it sure as hell pushed hard in that direction. Now everyone in the region wants to get in on NATO and Russia is claiming that's "provocation". That's nonsense, and it's shameful and pretty slimy to carry water for their nonsense.
Well that’s just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don’t count if they came after a war?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that whether or not they broke a cease fire has no bearing on whether past or future invasions of their country are justified. The Russian invasion was unjustified from the start. It doesn't magically become justified because Russia claims the other side broke a peace treaty. Russia could withdraw at any time. They could have even withdrawn to Crimea and probably been fine. Again, they claimed to not even be party to the treaty!
These are some pretty shameful arguments, overall.
Damn too bad they’re not going to do that, so what should we do about that? We support a negotiated settlement to the conflict in order to achieve peace, you support marching every single Ukrainian person into a meat grinder to die. Which of is more right wing?
This isn't about us. What "we" should do is to support and show solidarity with the side being attacked by an imperialist, dictatorial state and help them defend themselves.
When the Finnish were defending themselves in the Winter War it would not have been just to say "they should just surrender to save their lives". The Finns did eventually surrender, but only after they had stomped the Soviet army all across Finland. They continued fighting not to die but so that they could live.
The Ukrainians are fighting now not to die but so that they can live in (relative) freedom.
Again, this "we should just capitulate to whatever warmongers want" stuff is shameful and cowardly, doubly so for people on the Left.
Lol of all the examples, you pick another group of Nazis as a favorable point of comparison!! Wtf. Thank GOD the Soviets beat the Finnish Nazis in that war and then went on to beat the German Nazis after that.
Also lmao at calling Ukraine a free country compared to Russia, it’s just as fucked politically even prior to this invasion, now they’ve banned all left wing parties and are putting up statues of Nazis all over the place, fuck off, this has nothing at all to do with freedom.
Finland allied with the Nazis after the Winter War, in an attempt to regain their sovereignty from the USSR. They were not allied with Nazi Germany during the Winter War--and after the war, the leadership of the USSR agreed that Finland was not a particular risk and could be left alone.
Also lmao at calling Ukraine a free country compared to Russia
Ukraine is a far, far freer country than Russia. Of that there should be no doubt. On what merit, what axis, is Russia a freer society? Perhaps there is one, but Russia today is a corrupt, dictatorial, fascist state whose ruling party routinely imprisons or assassinates its political opposition or just general dissidents. They're also hardcore anti-gay, among other things.
Ukraine did suspend a number of pro-Russia political parties recently. Even if it was specifically targeting left-wing parties that still pales in comparison to Russia's treatment of political opposition and let's not forget that Ukraine is currently waging a defensive war against Russia. Also Zelensky is Jewish so i doubt he is putting up Nazi statues or in favor of doing so. I presume you're referring to activity of the Azov Battalion or some other group inside Ukraine and while those are dangerous and problematic, the Nazis in the Russian army are (I suspect) a more serious threat to the Ukrainian people right now.
Russia and Ukraine are basically the same politically, except for there are more Nazis in power in Ukraine. Prior to the invasion Ukraine was categorically ranked as the most corrupt country in Europe, Zelensky himself is in the Panama papers, they absolutely are not good on gay rights either, they overthrew their democratically elected president in 2014 in a CIA backed coup to put in a government handpicked by the U.S. (we can listen to Nuland picking the government on leaked phone calls), they’ve banned political opposition and all leftist parties (not pro-Russia, just all leftists. Being leftist generally means having semi sane takes like not wanting everybody in the country to die, so they had to be banned by the Nazi regime).
Also I didn’t say Russia is a free country, but Ukraine is easily just as bad if not worse, it’s a total farce to make this about freedom or democracy or any of that shit. Hell if democracy in Ukraine was real the war wouldn’t be happening, Zelensky was elected to end the conflict in the Donbass, he went to the front lines and told the Nazis to lay down arms and they told him to fuck off lol. You can watch the video of that happening.
Your characterization is grotesque and you're literally repeating Russia's propaganda about the war. Do you not see that? Or do you see it? Do you know what you are doing with that argument?
they overthrew their democratically elected president in 2014 in a CIA backed coup
This is great, you pro-Russia fuckers are all using the same arguments so i get to re-use my links! You're referring to the Revolution of Dignity, here, for those who don't know.
And you're going to have to provide a source and some details as far as what, exactly, you claim the CIA did. I haven't heard any credible claim that they were more than indirectly involved in propaganda and if that's the standard then Russia was doing the same damn thing if not more.
...we can listen to Nuland picking the government on leaked phone calls...
Presumably you're referring to these leaks, where she talks about how (for example) she doesn't think Vitaly Klitschko should "go into the government". Well, Klitschko became Mayor of Kyiv in 2014 so that's a bit of a blow to your theory.
...they’ve banned political opposition and all leftist parties (not pro-Russia, just all leftists. Being leftist generally means having semi sane takes like not wanting everybody in the country to die, so they had to be banned by the Nazi regime).
And this is just straight up factually wrong. None of this is correct.
Also I didn’t say Russia is a free country, but Ukraine is easily just as bad if not worse
I didn't say you did. I asked: on what merit is Ukraine worse than Russia? You have made that claim multiple times but have not provided one, I see, and nor have you provided a source for your claim. Surely you're not seriously going to claim elections or civil liberties, where Russia is much worse than Ukraine and not just a little worse.
imagine dying on the “war is bad” hill. i can agree on that point, and i don’t even need to politically align myself with real shitters and make a fool of myself in pseudo-public to do it!
You guys and the MAGA types seem to have very similar views on the Russia/Ukraine situation at the moment.
Could you be more specific?
I think, for example, that most alt-right types oppose the war either because of chauvinistic beliefs about American boys and American blood and treasure being spent on foreigners, or because they would like to work together with Russia to counter China and think a war with them hurts the white struggle against the eastern hordes. No one on hexbear would defend either of those positions.
It needs to be more specific than "both of you are against continuing the war." Just like it wouldn't be fair for me to accuse you of being alt- right because you and them both agree that there weren't WMDs in Iraq and that that invasion was sold on false pretenses. You might both technically agree but it would be missing the point.
It's theories about how spheres of influence work, that Russia has a right to take over Ukraine, or at least override it politically. Very much similar to Kissinger's Great power politics in the days of the USSR. It's somewhat different than the Russian right which is their divine right to Empire, over the Ukrainians and the Poles and Slavic countries in general. The ideologues Ivan Ilyin and Karl Schmidt influence that part. But notably, both parts believe that there's a place that Russia must dominate in Europe, and that other great powers must not interfere there. Leftists also are influenced by these theories, especially when they remember the reaches of the Iron Curtain far into Central Europe. The USSR had a history of intervening into the politics of its satellite states. Notably in Hungary when there were democratic protests, they sent in tanks to quell the uprising. This theory echoes in 2014 when the Ukrainians changed their government, and Russia invades and annexes Crimea. Many on the far left and far right see the massive protests as creeping American influence that does not belong in the region. They fear NATO expansion as it is a threat to Russia; In the west it's Russia itself, and in Russia, it's Russian greatness in Empire.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Liberals don't believe that countries exert influence on other countries around them? You think Joe Biden objects to the concept of spheres of influence? You brought up Kissinger, you don't think US foreign policy is operating under the logic of realpolitik? I'm not sure what the alternative is to believing that countries act to pursue their interests in other countries. That just sounds like a description of the concept of foreign policy.
You’re talking about the fascist uprising where they went around marking the houses of Jews and Communists for extermination, like only a decade after the Soviets saved the world from Hitler?
we want an immediate end to the war. in what way does wanting an end to the death make us comparable with the alt-right?
How is being pro russia and wanting war to end in any way compatible though? They invaded Ukraine. They literally started a war. That's a pretty disgusting deflection tbh
How is wanting an end to a war being pro-russia?
Russia started a war. Ukraine has two choices. Surrender and end the bloodshed, or fight tooth and nail and pour more innocent people into the meat grinder and then surrender. There is not a third option. Obviously they should choose the former.
NATO/US started the war when they couped the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014, and when the US installed regime started bombing civilians in the Donbass
Oh so Russia is just saving Ukrainians from US imperialism by bombing them and committing war crimes. Thank god for our wonderful leader putin o7
Where did I say any of that? I was simply correcting the poster about who the original instigators of the conflict were, and pointing out the fact that the banderite regime has been killing innocent Ukrainians for years, history did not begin in February 2022
Acknowledging the US's role in creating the conflict and the crimes of the regime they installed is not the same as supporting Russia's actions
Calling for an immediate end to the war is dishonest and supports Russia
We’re just not keeping our head in the sand here. Ukraine is not taking back Crimea, or even the Donbas. The counteroffensive failed horribly. Cheering for more bloodshed isn’t going to make a better outcome in the end.
"cheering for more bloodshed." Are you telling on yourself? You act like a counteroffensive is supposed to be fast and easy. It's not, war is bloody and deadly and Russia is not going to call for peace until they achieve their objective of overthrowing the Ukrainian government or achieving a peace deal where they can keep Ukraine's economic sectors
So that was a fucking lie
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
You act like peace deals are the same thing as calls for peace. They can still have peace deals to appear they want peace when they started the war in the first place back in 2014
You act as if a peace deal isn't literally someone calling for peace.
Lmao what with the "infiltrators" that cannot be proven? The two oblasts have a large population that is ethnically russian. When a government that had spoken of cleansing russian influence comes into power, it is pretty understandable that that would foment separatism. At best we can prove Russia provided financial aid to separatists, and then later stepped in and negotiate Minsk I and II, which were both broken by Ukraine
Did these ethnically Russian people want to be apart of Russia?
you provide links proving any of your points
do it right now
Yall calling for the continuation of the war are telling on yourselves. Otherwise you'd fucking be fighting rather than advocating behind a computer for others to die. Too scared to go to Spain and fight the fascists?
Oh man the the US union should've just given up the civil war instead of continuing the fighting. Think of all the good Americans that will die. Let's just let the confederates secede instead of having a bloody conflict
You think the country that has a national holiday to celebrate their Nazi era leader is the Union in this analogy?
And there the conversation goes. Ukraine is actually Nazi and it's ok to kidnap and bomb the Ukrainian citizens because the country is openly nazi
Nice false equivalent. Keep trying.
If you think it's this important, why aren't you volunteering?
It's September. Their window to make any gains in their counteroffensive has passed. Now they have to fight against the weather on top of the Russians.
The only progress the counteroffensive has made is in destroying Western materiel and getting scores of Ukrainians killed. They haven’t even reached the second defensive line yet. The total amount of territory retaken is like 100 meters of farmland. I’m calling it a failure because it is a failure.
Hey, it's made a lot of money for the military-industrial complex too!
You can't call it a wash like that when, back home, the almighty line is going up.
They can either surrender now, or surrender when all the able bodied people have been killed for no good reason. Ukraine can no longer win this war.
"Ukraine should surrender so that they can spare their civilian and combatant lives to Russia which totally won't abuse their land and people as they've done in the past"
Ukraine should surrender now while people still have families to come home to, instead of propagating senseless death.
You're also just making russian demands up? At no point during this war has Russia sought to annex the entirety of Ukraine, which it seems to be whate you are implying they will do.
Please try to remain in reality.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-war-vanishing-goals#:~:text=So%2C%20before%20the%20start%20of,of%20Luhansk%20and%20Donetsk%20oblasts.
You're linking me to the Woodrow Wilson institute? Lmao get the fuck out of here. Whats next, radio free Russia? If you want a serious answer to what Russia claims just look at what demands they have made - these are the demands negotiations revolve around
So wait. Your criteria for who should win is based on the aftermath... So you think Ukraine should be allowed to complete it's ethnic cleansing?
What ethnic cleansing?
There were pogroms and mass murders at the ground level and there were laws targeting Russian speakers from the governmental level. The weapons Trump was impeached for tying political favors to were being used against resistance militias. They were being used to bomb facilities built in the soviet era that pump hot water into people's homes as the local method of heating during the winter. They locked over a hundred people in a building and burned them alive in it. They broke multiple treaties with Russia in order to do all of this. This was the lead up to the war.
Thank you for your source
Whoop, there it is! I'm quoting that for posterity before you delete this comment.
You're literally denying an attempted genocide right now, y'know that?
What attempted genocide? You didn't answer my question. I love the fascist playbook of "don't play defense" in action.
Russia could make that happen, you know. They could pull their forces out. Right now, that would end the conflict.
Do you think we’re in charge of the Russian military? The war is going to end eventually one way or another. We might as well push for the path that preserves Ukrainian lives.
Are we in charge of the Ukrainian military? Not that it really matters, but still.
Russia can unilaterally end the conflict. Ukraine cannot (yet). Calling on Ukrainians to surrender while they still want to defend themselves is cowardice. I would rather support their continued struggle.
And Ukraine could have prevented all of this by simply abiding by the several peace deals they signed before the war started. What's your point?
Oh, so Russia deciding to invade Ukraine is the fault of the Ukrainians? Cool. Very normal opinion.
You just insulted me with the sole thrust being that I'm not in your echo chamber.
I'm referencing real world events. Do you not believe Ukraine broke both Minsk I and II as a lead up to the war? Do you not have google?
e: And what's this weasel bullshit where you slipped in 'Ukrainians' like I'm going after the citizens and not the government? The Ukrainian people haven't had a legitimate government since 2014 when the one they actually elected themselves was deposed in a far right western backed coup.
What I think is that it doesn't matter in the context of an aggressive war against a country that was not threatening Russia.
Minsk I came about after the Russian military had invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory. The first of these two agreements is already taking place after the initial aggression and thus are not really factors in the question of whether Ukraine should defend itself from that aggression.
With that said, Minsk I saw violations on both sides and fell apart for that reason. Minsk II was fundamentally similar to Minsk I and thus was going to struggle to escape the same fate. While the Russians claimed that Ukraine violated the terms of Minsk II, they also claimed that they were not a party to Minsk II and thus were not violating it with their own troop buildup. Of course, they also claim that Ukraine's supposed violations of Minsk II were justification for further Russian invasion, despite claiming to not be a party to the treaty. That's some duplicitous behavior and, again, if I were in Ukraine I would not want the Russian military in my country.
All that said, the point that Minsk I and II are not justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They sure as hell were not justification for the initial invasion of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk (not existing yet during those) and they're not justification of Russia's continued invasion deeper into Ukraine.
Lol well that's just a fucking lie. Zelenksy was openly threatening to host nuclear weapons for Nato on the eve of the invasion. Do you have a selective memory or are you just fucking ignorant of the entire history of this conflict and should therefore shut the fuck up?
They didn't invade; they were already there. The legitimate government of Ukraine leased the naval base to them in Crimea and when the western backed coup government wanted to revoke the lease they simply stayed. Accuse them of squatting.
Well that's just fucking stupid. Peace treaties don't count if they came after a war?
Sorry you just lost my attention with that one
Do you understand that there's a difference between hosting weapons in your country and (let's say) invading another country and (for example) launching missile strikes at civilians? (And can i just say? That Wikipedia page just keeps going and going.)
Let's also not forget about Russia continuously threatening to nuke Ukraine without commensurate nuclear threat from the other side. (They just keep doing it!)
Really, if we go back to the start of this (the pre-Crimea days), Ukraine had two futures. In one, it grew closer to Russia and came under the Russian sphere of influence. In the other, it grew closer to the West likewise. It was leaning in the direction of the West, but when Russia attacked it sure as hell pushed hard in that direction. Now everyone in the region wants to get in on NATO and Russia is claiming that's "provocation". That's nonsense, and it's shameful and pretty slimy to carry water for their nonsense.
I dunno how to tell you this but the entirety of Crimea is not Russia's private naval base. No, not even if Vladimir Putin really wants it.
You mean the Revolution of Dignity??? That's what you're talking about here, right?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that whether or not they broke a cease fire has no bearing on whether past or future invasions of their country are justified. The Russian invasion was unjustified from the start. It doesn't magically become justified because Russia claims the other side broke a peace treaty. Russia could withdraw at any time. They could have even withdrawn to Crimea and probably been fine. Again, they claimed to not even be party to the treaty!
These are some pretty shameful arguments, overall.
Damn too bad they’re not going to do that, so what should we do about that? We support a negotiated settlement to the conflict in order to achieve peace, you support marching every single Ukrainian person into a meat grinder to die. Which of is more right wing?
This isn't about us. What "we" should do is to support and show solidarity with the side being attacked by an imperialist, dictatorial state and help them defend themselves.
When the Finnish were defending themselves in the Winter War it would not have been just to say "they should just surrender to save their lives". The Finns did eventually surrender, but only after they had stomped the Soviet army all across Finland. They continued fighting not to die but so that they could live.
The Ukrainians are fighting now not to die but so that they can live in (relative) freedom.
Again, this "we should just capitulate to whatever warmongers want" stuff is shameful and cowardly, doubly so for people on the Left.
Lol of all the examples, you pick another group of Nazis as a favorable point of comparison!! Wtf. Thank GOD the Soviets beat the Finnish Nazis in that war and then went on to beat the German Nazis after that.
Also lmao at calling Ukraine a free country compared to Russia, it’s just as fucked politically even prior to this invasion, now they’ve banned all left wing parties and are putting up statues of Nazis all over the place, fuck off, this has nothing at all to do with freedom.
Finland allied with the Nazis after the Winter War, in an attempt to regain their sovereignty from the USSR. They were not allied with Nazi Germany during the Winter War--and after the war, the leadership of the USSR agreed that Finland was not a particular risk and could be left alone.
Ukraine is a far, far freer country than Russia. Of that there should be no doubt. On what merit, what axis, is Russia a freer society? Perhaps there is one, but Russia today is a corrupt, dictatorial, fascist state whose ruling party routinely imprisons or assassinates its political opposition or just general dissidents. They're also hardcore anti-gay, among other things.
Ukraine did suspend a number of pro-Russia political parties recently. Even if it was specifically targeting left-wing parties that still pales in comparison to Russia's treatment of political opposition and let's not forget that Ukraine is currently waging a defensive war against Russia. Also Zelensky is Jewish so i doubt he is putting up Nazi statues or in favor of doing so. I presume you're referring to activity of the Azov Battalion or some other group inside Ukraine and while those are dangerous and problematic, the Nazis in the Russian army are (I suspect) a more serious threat to the Ukrainian people right now.
Russia and Ukraine are basically the same politically, except for there are more Nazis in power in Ukraine. Prior to the invasion Ukraine was categorically ranked as the most corrupt country in Europe, Zelensky himself is in the Panama papers, they absolutely are not good on gay rights either, they overthrew their democratically elected president in 2014 in a CIA backed coup to put in a government handpicked by the U.S. (we can listen to Nuland picking the government on leaked phone calls), they’ve banned political opposition and all leftist parties (not pro-Russia, just all leftists. Being leftist generally means having semi sane takes like not wanting everybody in the country to die, so they had to be banned by the Nazi regime).
Also I didn’t say Russia is a free country, but Ukraine is easily just as bad if not worse, it’s a total farce to make this about freedom or democracy or any of that shit. Hell if democracy in Ukraine was real the war wouldn’t be happening, Zelensky was elected to end the conflict in the Donbass, he went to the front lines and told the Nazis to lay down arms and they told him to fuck off lol. You can watch the video of that happening.
Now you're just saying shit you wish were true. Come on. There are some pretty big differences.
The president of Ukraine is Jewish and his family fought and died in WW2. This doesn't mean there's no problem, but that is not indicative of a country overcome by Nazis.
Your characterization is grotesque and you're literally repeating Russia's propaganda about the war. Do you not see that? Or do you see it? Do you know what you are doing with that argument?
This is great, you pro-Russia fuckers are all using the same arguments so i get to re-use my links! You're referring to the Revolution of Dignity, here, for those who don't know.
And you're going to have to provide a source and some details as far as what, exactly, you claim the CIA did. I haven't heard any credible claim that they were more than indirectly involved in propaganda and if that's the standard then Russia was doing the same damn thing if not more.
Presumably you're referring to these leaks, where she talks about how (for example) she doesn't think Vitaly Klitschko should "go into the government". Well, Klitschko became Mayor of Kyiv in 2014 so that's a bit of a blow to your theory.
And this is just straight up factually wrong. None of this is correct.
I didn't say you did. I asked: on what merit is Ukraine worse than Russia? You have made that claim multiple times but have not provided one, I see, and nor have you provided a source for your claim. Surely you're not seriously going to claim elections or civil liberties, where Russia is much worse than Ukraine and not just a little worse.
imagine dying on the “war is bad” hill. i can agree on that point, and i don’t even need to politically align myself with real shitters and make a fool of myself in pseudo-public to do it!
imagine not thinking war is bad. imagine believing American propaganda given its track record.
Bro, this war is totally different to every other war, bro!
Trust me, bro! I know we got duped into supporting:
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
The war in Iraq
The other war in Iraq
The war in Afghanistan
The war in the Philippines
The war in Guatemala
The war on Cuba
The war in Laos
The war in Cambodia
The war in Somalia
The war in Yemen
The war in Libya
The war in Grenada
The war in Yugoslavia
...but this time it's an existential threat!! Trust me, bro!
art
New tagline dropped
deleted by creator
I find these terms agreeable
deleted by creator
"Very" implies you've drilled down beyond the very first superficial similarity.
Please offer two things in which we have in common since you're clearly not just talking out of your ass.