The current government of Ukraine had a conciliatory platform and policy in 2019-20.
I guess you didn't see what Zelensky said yesterday, also it is flat wrong to claim the ultranationlists didn't control the executive or legislature they are the dominant party even if their neo nazis militias maintain a fake media distance, and the increasing Ukrainian shelling of donbass in months prior to the invasion is the definition of ever-escalating crisis
All 3 of these assertions are exaggerations
Um no, not with the numbers of equipment losses provided by Israeli intelligence two weeks ago, 6,000 tank losses in under a year is equivalent to three Ukrainian militaries in the years prior to the invasion
Servant of the People, a liberal/centrist party, won a supermajority in the last of both presidential and parliamentary elections. Freedom and Right Sector did not even make the top 5 parties/candidates.
Certainly lots of things went out the window when a hawkish US regime came to power and started provoking a contest. But that was in 2021. Whatever Zelensky saod yesterday was in 2023, not in the early stages of his presidency in 2019-20 that I was making a point about.
There's no need to cherry-pick about how many tanks constitute a military (or even worse, that Donbass is more defensible than Crimea or Ivano-Frankivsk). What I'm saying is that there is an implicit agreement, between the state apparata and ruling classes of the US and Russia, to sacrifice Ukrainians in a race to seize land and resources and markets. The Ukrainians do not deserve the bulk of the blame for their own suffering; that bulk is due to NATO.
Servant of the people passed anti-russian language laws
Servant of the people allowed neo-nazis militias to intergrate into the military
Servant of people mps gave regular speeches assuring that Crimea would be reconquered
Servant of the people continued the forced disappearances of ethnic Russians in donbass
Liberal and centrist can mean alot of things, but just buying wholesale into the nonsense framing of a radical coup government that only "looks" tame compared to actual insane nazis is a pretty interesting position for people on the left to hold
That liberal/centrist party is bankrolled by the the same guy that bankrolls the Azov Battalion. Zelenskyy serves the fascists who rule the state. Get real lib
So you agree that Ukraine’s government is a fascist NATO state that needs to be destroyed or at least de-militarized because it’s run by Nazi aligned financiers?
sitting on the blackened earth, surrounded by thousands of square miles of despoiled fields and ruined cities
"Well, it only cost 500,000 Ukrainian lives, a third of their population as emigrants, and all of their infrastructure and domestic industry, and we might have a huge insurgency on our hands, but it was totally worth it to depose a leader friendly with American and British reactionaries and replace him with a leader friendly to Russian reactionaries."
Go back and read my original point: defending Donbass was morally defensible, attacking Ukraine proper was less so.
Wow, people on a leftist shitposting forum don't 'actually care about combatting imperialism'. Looks like we have the one true leftist here.
If you are so worried about imperialism, log off, shut the fuck up and go join an antiwar group in your own country (I am assuming the U.S., but hey we get all types here). There is dick-all you can do about Russia on here.
Yes, you are absolutely right. We should all oppose western imperialism, since that's the one we have a higher chance of actually being able to impact.
Doesn't mean i can't be suspicious/wary of people who, in my opinion, are a little too forgiving of Russia, thought. Forgive me if i sounded a bit NATOy.
I don't really give a shit if you sound NATOy, but being an insufferable debate-bro by bringing up completely unrelated scenarios as if they have any relevance on the moral calculations of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is annoying af. Stick to the topic at hand.
There are terrible things happening in the Donbas, there were terrible things happening in the Donbas, and terrible things will continue to happen for the foreseeable future in the Donbas. None of us know what the correct moral calculation is, so stop counting angels on the head of a pin. I am fine if people are 'more forgiving of Russia' on this one little forum as opposed to the metric shit-ton of dumb takes I have to suffer through offline. (Example: I'm glad they are fighting in Ukraine because then Russia can't invade the U.S. like it wanted to.) At least these people actually understand the history of the conflict.
Lmao, no, they don't. Talking about the terrible things that have been happening in the Donbass since 2014 is also pointless since Putin doesn't give a fuck about said citizens. Material analysis please.
And again, i don't really care about all the NATO propaganda you subject yourself to. Running in the other direction and swallowing uncritically what Putin says to justify his actions doesn't help anyone.
You've demonstrated clearly throughout the thread that you have less of an idea about what is going on and the history of the conflict than basically anybody else on this thread. I mean, at least Prinz knows what went on and still completely disagrees with the invasion. You're just saying words, otherwise why the fuck would you bring up irrelevant shit all the time.
Lol, christ, stop throwing around your half-understood leftist buzzwords as if they have any meaning the way you are using them. This is what I am talking about when I say annoying debate-bro shit. Where did I say Putin was making moral calculations? Where did I indicate anywhere what I think Putin is thinking. I was talking about US, as westerners, determining the moral calculation of how much support we give Russia, and what the long run on history for this action will be.
I don't 'uncritically swallow what Putin says'. In fact, nobody on this forum does that, at least since ZPoster got banned.
However, here's some actual 'materialist analysis'. Even if all of us swallowed all of the Russian propaganda and repeated it uncritically on this forum it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Materially, this forum is a fart in a hurricane of manufactured discourse, and can't help anyone in one way or the other. Aside from that, from a systemic standpoint neither side of this conflict is governed by democratic government actions, so EVEN IF the talk on this forum were to matter to the discourse, it still wouldn't matter to the 'helping of people'.
Stop pretending you have some sort of high ground for arguing in the internet. You just wanna be right, and you are fine with being as annoying as possible to feel that sweet sweet dopamine rush. We all love the skinner box, don't we folks?
You are the one that’s a fence sitting moralist. I think Palestine should destroy Israel, just like I think Iran should destroy Israel and Russia should destroy Ukraine and China should destroy Taiwan. I’m a hardline anti-imperialist, you’re a fence sitting liberal
Lmao, hell yeah brother. Long live our antiimperialist fighter Putin.
I guess the bolsheviks were also fencesitters for not supporting either side during WW1. I have my one side, the working class, both the ukrainian and russian one.
All colonies and all NATO bases must be destroyed with violence, it is the primary contradiction, and your role as a westerner inside the imperial core is revolutionary defeatism. You should be minimizing and sabotaging your own nation’s ability to make war, not repeating the casus belli narratives of your own empire. The radlibs cheering on Dark Brandon’s anti-Russia campaign will be the end of us all because we can’t form a coherent or large enough revolutionary defeatist left
defending Donbass was morally defensible, attacking Ukraine proper was less so.
There is absolutely no scenario in which Russia defends Donbass that the West would not construe as an invasion. The plan for years has been to arm Ukraine to fight Russia. The calculus Russia made was that if they're going to get a whole war, they need to fight a whole war, and that means not limiting themselves to only operating in a tiny segment of Ukraine. That's not a viable path to victory. Morally defensible or not, states are going to use the strategy that will succeed: a fantasy ideal scenario of only being involved in the Donbass could not be successful and so would not have happened. Any intervention in favor of people in the Donbass means a full war is necessary because of the inevitable geopolitical reaction
Crimea was done pretty cleanly in 2014. There might have been verbal denouncements, but there was no military response nor any chance of one. Most of the world unflinchingly just accepted that this presently and historically Russian-majority area eagerly agreed to be Russian.
I'm at least partially in agreement with WWario that it would have been better for Putin to also take at least Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, to avoid the protracted mess that became of the region.
I guess you didn't see what Zelensky said yesterday, also it is flat wrong to claim the ultranationlists didn't control the executive or legislature they are the dominant party even if their neo nazis militias maintain a fake media distance, and the increasing Ukrainian shelling of donbass in months prior to the invasion is the definition of ever-escalating crisis
Um no, not with the numbers of equipment losses provided by Israeli intelligence two weeks ago, 6,000 tank losses in under a year is equivalent to three Ukrainian militaries in the years prior to the invasion
Servant of the People, a liberal/centrist party, won a supermajority in the last of both presidential and parliamentary elections. Freedom and Right Sector did not even make the top 5 parties/candidates.
Certainly lots of things went out the window when a hawkish US regime came to power and started provoking a contest. But that was in 2021. Whatever Zelensky saod yesterday was in 2023, not in the early stages of his presidency in 2019-20 that I was making a point about.
There's no need to cherry-pick about how many tanks constitute a military (or even worse, that Donbass is more defensible than Crimea or Ivano-Frankivsk). What I'm saying is that there is an implicit agreement, between the state apparata and ruling classes of the US and Russia, to sacrifice Ukrainians in a race to seize land and resources and markets. The Ukrainians do not deserve the bulk of the blame for their own suffering; that bulk is due to NATO.
Servant of the people passed anti-russian language laws
Servant of the people allowed neo-nazis militias to intergrate into the military
Servant of people mps gave regular speeches assuring that Crimea would be reconquered
Servant of the people continued the forced disappearances of ethnic Russians in donbass
Liberal and centrist can mean alot of things, but just buying wholesale into the nonsense framing of a radical coup government that only "looks" tame compared to actual insane nazis is a pretty interesting position for people on the left to hold
That liberal/centrist party is bankrolled by the the same guy that bankrolls the Azov Battalion. Zelenskyy serves the fascists who rule the state. Get real lib
You mean to tell me that capitalists would do such a thing as funding multiple rival political parties?
Next thing I know you'll be telling me they financed both sides of WW2.
So you agree that Ukraine’s government is a fascist NATO state that needs to be destroyed or at least de-militarized because it’s run by Nazi aligned financiers?
sitting on the blackened earth, surrounded by thousands of square miles of despoiled fields and ruined cities
"Well, it only cost 500,000 Ukrainian lives, a third of their population as emigrants, and all of their infrastructure and domestic industry, and we might have a huge insurgency on our hands, but it was totally worth it to depose a leader friendly with American and British reactionaries and replace him with a leader friendly to Russian reactionaries."
Go back and read my original point: defending Donbass was morally defensible, attacking Ukraine proper was less so.
Crazy how artillery and rockets make it impossible to “defend” territory without going on offense to push them back and break supply lines
If NATO fascists pick an imperialist proxy fight, they should be defeated. I don’t want to hear lib both sides shit
Hell yeah, fuck France imperialism, long live the Russian Empire and AustroHungary, brother.
Bet you are neutral on Iran-Israel too, just two capitalist states. All sides are equally bad in Syria too. Everything is flat.
Hey, palestina is bombing israeli citizens, so it's perfectly ok for Israel to conquer them, am i right???
Fuck off. You people don't give a fuck about actually combatting imperialism.
Wow, people on a leftist shitposting forum don't 'actually care about combatting imperialism'. Looks like we have the one true leftist here.
If you are so worried about imperialism, log off, shut the fuck up and go join an antiwar group in your own country (I am assuming the U.S., but hey we get all types here). There is dick-all you can do about Russia on here.
Yes, you are absolutely right. We should all oppose western imperialism, since that's the one we have a higher chance of actually being able to impact.
Doesn't mean i can't be suspicious/wary of people who, in my opinion, are a little too forgiving of Russia, thought. Forgive me if i sounded a bit NATOy.
I don't really give a shit if you sound NATOy, but being an insufferable debate-bro by bringing up completely unrelated scenarios as if they have any relevance on the moral calculations of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is annoying af. Stick to the topic at hand.
There are terrible things happening in the Donbas, there were terrible things happening in the Donbas, and terrible things will continue to happen for the foreseeable future in the Donbas. None of us know what the correct moral calculation is, so stop counting angels on the head of a pin. I am fine if people are 'more forgiving of Russia' on this one little forum as opposed to the metric shit-ton of dumb takes I have to suffer through offline. (Example: I'm glad they are fighting in Ukraine because then Russia can't invade the U.S. like it wanted to.) At least these people actually understand the history of the conflict.
Lmao, no, they don't. Talking about the terrible things that have been happening in the Donbass since 2014 is also pointless since Putin doesn't give a fuck about said citizens. Material analysis please.
And again, i don't really care about all the NATO propaganda you subject yourself to. Running in the other direction and swallowing uncritically what Putin says to justify his actions doesn't help anyone.
You've demonstrated clearly throughout the thread that you have less of an idea about what is going on and the history of the conflict than basically anybody else on this thread. I mean, at least Prinz knows what went on and still completely disagrees with the invasion. You're just saying words, otherwise why the fuck would you bring up irrelevant shit all the time.
Lol, christ, stop throwing around your half-understood leftist buzzwords as if they have any meaning the way you are using them. This is what I am talking about when I say annoying debate-bro shit. Where did I say Putin was making moral calculations? Where did I indicate anywhere what I think Putin is thinking. I was talking about US, as westerners, determining the moral calculation of how much support we give Russia, and what the long run on history for this action will be.
I don't 'uncritically swallow what Putin says'. In fact, nobody on this forum does that, at least since ZPoster got banned.
However, here's some actual 'materialist analysis'. Even if all of us swallowed all of the Russian propaganda and repeated it uncritically on this forum it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Materially, this forum is a fart in a hurricane of manufactured discourse, and can't help anyone in one way or the other. Aside from that, from a systemic standpoint neither side of this conflict is governed by democratic government actions, so EVEN IF the talk on this forum were to matter to the discourse, it still wouldn't matter to the 'helping of people'.
Stop pretending you have some sort of high ground for arguing in the internet. You just wanna be right, and you are fine with being as annoying as possible to feel that sweet sweet dopamine rush. We all love the skinner box, don't we folks?
ZPoster said nothing wrong
You are the one that’s a fence sitting moralist. I think Palestine should destroy Israel, just like I think Iran should destroy Israel and Russia should destroy Ukraine and China should destroy Taiwan. I’m a hardline anti-imperialist, you’re a fence sitting liberal
Lmao, hell yeah brother. Long live our antiimperialist fighter Putin.
I guess the bolsheviks were also fencesitters for not supporting either side during WW1. I have my one side, the working class, both the ukrainian and russian one.
Go back to Reddit vaushoid
Go back to stormfront.
All colonies and all NATO bases must be destroyed with violence, it is the primary contradiction, and your role as a westerner inside the imperial core is revolutionary defeatism. You should be minimizing and sabotaging your own nation’s ability to make war, not repeating the casus belli narratives of your own empire. The radlibs cheering on Dark Brandon’s anti-Russia campaign will be the end of us all because we can’t form a coherent or large enough revolutionary defeatist left
There is absolutely no scenario in which Russia defends Donbass that the West would not construe as an invasion. The plan for years has been to arm Ukraine to fight Russia. The calculus Russia made was that if they're going to get a whole war, they need to fight a whole war, and that means not limiting themselves to only operating in a tiny segment of Ukraine. That's not a viable path to victory. Morally defensible or not, states are going to use the strategy that will succeed: a fantasy ideal scenario of only being involved in the Donbass could not be successful and so would not have happened. Any intervention in favor of people in the Donbass means a full war is necessary because of the inevitable geopolitical reaction
Crimea was done pretty cleanly in 2014. There might have been verbal denouncements, but there was no military response nor any chance of one. Most of the world unflinchingly just accepted that this presently and historically Russian-majority area eagerly agreed to be Russian.
I'm at least partially in agreement with WWario that it would have been better for Putin to also take at least Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, to avoid the protracted mess that became of the region.