“In culture war crap, we tend to align! Yeah it’s for different reasons! I’m only for or against something because the people I hate decided it’s a new front!”
I swear they just do Ukraine support out of a culture war thing because 2016 elections, Russia and Trump.
Abandoning the idea that Russia buying a relatively miniscule amount of ads on social media/running bot farms swayed the 2016 election would mean that liberals would have to confront the idea that Trump won in 2016 b/c the country is actually more racist than they thought it was.
They'd have to blame the electoral college more than anything. Clinton received 3 million more votes and still lost. Liberals are servants to rules and procedures even to their own detriment.
That, and the anti-Democratic structure of presidential elections is a much more serious problem than they thought.
That's the kicker here. If Trump was anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine, the libs would be falling over themselves to denounce this evil war and supporting an authoritarian regime.
... because this time the US is backing Ukraine against the aggressor, whereas in 2004 it was the aggressor?
Hmm I wonder if anything interesting happened in Ukraine in for example 2014. Nothing in particular comes to mind.
Why did Clinton give so much money to Yeltsin in the 1990s? How were the modern nation states of Ukraine and Russia created, and how does their creation relate to amerikkka’s relentless focus on the destruction of the USSR?
“It’s different this time, we have to meddle with [foreign country], we have to fund highly reactionary forces there since they’re mysteriously the only ones who will work with us, this couldn’t possibly bite us in the ass in the future, just one more rightwing coup/proxy war bro I swear, just one more rightwing coup/proxy war, it’s the other side disrespecting human rights and democracy, it’s the other side doing imperialism and colonialism I swear bro, please, they’re just showing their agency bro—“
Is that what CIA funded color revolutions are called these days?
you mean when crimeans overwhelmingly voted to become part of Russia in a
democratic referendumrigged fake news sham election
so when Victoria Nuland picked Ukraine's new government after instigating a coup and they killed ~16,000
civilianspeople in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 those were friendly, non-aggressive artillery shells?~16,000 civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022
where is this number from? the 10k+ numbers i've seen for the war all include military dead as well
I think it was in the OSCE special monitoring mission reports, I'll update if I can find
EDIT: well, might be vegan egg substitute on my face on this one. the OSCE numbers I can find so far for a 3 year period (2017-2020) are in line but only if it inlcudes all casualties not just civilians
you are probably right. I've crossed it out and will adjust my posting
So you're saying that Russia didn't invade Ukraine first, before the separatist-controlled areas were shelled?
Is there any specific proof of the part where Russia entered after Ukraine bombed??
I personally don't see it as necessary, and think an analysis of which forces/interests were pushing towards the war is more important than "who fired the first bullet" anyways. That's always seemed like a dumb way of arguing anyways, because of how often it's actually "he punched me first (after I held this knife right next to his throat for years)." But libs do all the time so it'd be good to be able to disprove not only on my terms but theirs
Oh, so you're saying that Russia illegally annexing Crimea in 2014 wasn't an invasion of Ukraine?
You can always tell who the most ignorant libs are when they bring up Crimea lmao
Crimea is not Ukrainian, it has always been a distinct cultural ethnic region and 97% of Crimeans voting for independence from Kiev should give you pause before you breathlessly insist they should remain beholden to a bunch of nazi banderites
"Acktually sweaty, don't you know that if a vote has a higher than 80% yes vote, it's automatically a sham? Every vote needs to be really close or else it doesn't count and isn't real democracy. Consensus isn't democratic!"
"Except for the Falklands, since it still counts when we do it"
Crimeans wanting independence means they wanted to become part of the Russian empire again?
the Russian federation is a reactionary bourgeois state that is a hollowed out shell of its former USSR self, but I dislike the hyperbole that it is "the Russian Empire". Russia Today is neither the Russian empire, nor the Soviet Union. If anything it is closer politically to what it would have been if the February revolution had continued and the October revolution never happened: A bourgeois state.
a russian majority region would rather not be ethnically cleansed
they join russia
those people are pro russian empire traitors
Yes you dumb fuck, as a means of protection from the nazi captured Ukrainian army who would've otherwise bulldozed the small region
making it pretty obvious here that you have no idea who Victoria Nuland is and only started paying attention to any of this stuff in 2022
Oh, I've been following the whole thing for years and know who she is.
I just don't think that her supporting pro-democratic and anti-corruption reform in Ukraine equates to it being okay for Russia to annex part of a neighbouring country.
Democracy is when you replace an elected leader with a pro-western one.
Liberal Democracy is all about giving Americans the right to vote in your countries elections.
pro-democratic
democracy is when you pick the new officials yourself on a phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt
Pro-democracy is when you ban left opposition but not fascists. Anti-corruption is when you have offshore accounts connected to the oligarch who funded said fascists that you used to work for on his TV program
The Pandora Papers revealed that Zelensky and his inner circle had offshore accounts connected to Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky is an oligarch that owned the TV station Zelensky worked for prior. He also funded nazi militias that couped the government in 2014
supporting pro-democratic and anti-corruption reform in Ukraine
[laughs in Operation Aerodynamic]
Oh wow, really? A cold-war era campaign? You're really pushing Putin's talking points here.
Lmao I refuse to believe you've ever heard or read about Vladmir Putin discussing that
democracy is when you elect zelensky on a platform of peace with russia but he lets the Right Sector and Azov continue to try the ethnic cleansing of eastern ukraine
I just don't think that her supporting pro-democratic and anti-corruption reform
Is this a joke? Pro democracy? Anti corruption? When has the US ever stood for that outside of propaganda purposes?
Assuming that it was even legitimate to begin with, which is a big if, a popular vote doesn't automatically legitimize relinquishing territory to a foreign nation.
Assuming that it was even legitimate to begin with
"Democracy is when the stupid foreigners vote how I think they should, otherwise it's not legitimate"
doesn't automatically legitimize relinquishing territory to a foreign nation.
If the people vote overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine, then that shows that Crimea isn't Ukraine's to relinquish or not. Liberals and abandoning democracy as soon as it becomes a rhetorical inconvenience for them, name a more iconic duo.
plebecites that don't go my way are automatically illegitimate
Oh look another imperialist
TFW when being pro-Russia with regards to the Ukraine conflict is also being imperialist 🤡
recognizing the geopolitical reality of the situation is not being pro-Russia 🤡
When they break out the smug clown emoji, we reply with superior emojis
a "popular vote" doesn't automatically legitimize relinquishing territory to a foreign nation.
Good you acknowledge that even the westoid cope for the Euromaidan coup is bullshit.
If your aim is to prevent war, what is your solution for when the vast majority of people in one country want to join another, and vote accordingly?
A complicated situation certainly, but whatever the answer is, it is not "collude with a neighbouring foreign nation, allow them to invade, and provoke a military conflict."
a complicated situation
proceeds to construct the most disingenuous and untrue summary of the situation
So you don't have an answer, but "a vote followed by annexation" is unacceptable for some reason? Why reject a peaceful solution that results in people having the government they want to live under?
Apparently it's "collude with local fascists and US MIC and allow them to provoke a military conflict and wage a proxy war with Russia"
Pretty extreme answer for a situation you consider to be "complicated"
territorial integrity takes precedence over popular will
we agree taiwan isn't a country then
sounds like someone hasn't asked my friends in the Taiwanese Liberation Subreddit what their opinions are!
Oh, so you're saying the Ukrainian government wasn't couped by nazis in 2014?
I know borders are sacred and inviolable, but Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country until fairly recently. It's not weird that large populations of people would rather not be living under the rule of Ukrainian nationalists and decided to make some adjustments.
Russia is the aggressor in this war, and it's bad that they invaded.
Russia invaded Ukraine in response to continued US policy of bringing countries near Russia's borders into NATO, a military treaty organization that Russia had tried to join but was barred from. Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.
The Ukrainians are the victims in a proxy war between two much larger powers. For the average Ukrainian, sooner the war is over, the better. Somehow repelling the invasion would be ideal, but every day of fighting destroys lives and homes.
US policy in response to the invasion is to send military hardware to Ukraine, enriching its arms manufacturers and prolonging the conflict. They make the Ukrainian government pay for this by forcing the privatization of their government assets at bargain prices (note how this website exists and is fully translated to English). The actual fighting is still done by Ukrainians, who die for this.
New here. I was reading all the snarky strawman comments here and thinking "what the fuck are these people on?". Then I read your comment, which is clearly and concisely written, and makes good points. I hadn't thought of it that way and it makes a lot of sense. Not saying my view is totally flipped around, but that's some food for thought and I'll be snacking down.
Now will the rest of you calm down about owning libs and speak nicely to each other?
Hah, thanks.
When the war started, there were a lot of posts on here talking about the war in more nuance, and essays about Revolutionary Defeatism, Lenin's take on this from World War 1.
But after over a year of arguing with blood-thirsty neoliberals who want to fight to the last Ukrainian, people are more tired and just want to yell.
Some additional food for thought (hopefully you aren't full
):- November 2013: Duly-elected Ukranian president Viktor Yanukovych declines to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, sparking significant protests.
- Dec 2013: John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: "We are here to support your just cause"
- Feb 2014: Yanukovych agrees to early elections and a withdrawal of police from the capitol; the opposition agreed to surrender arms and cease violence. None of this was implemented and Yanukovych flees the country.
- Mar 2014: In the midst of this turmoil, 97% of Crimean voters (83% turnout) vote to join the Russian Federation (staying with Ukraine was the other option on thr ballot). Crimea declares independence and is annexed by Russia shortly after. Despite the significant protests elsewhere in Ukraine, this is a peaceful process.
- Sep 2014: West must arm Ukraine to fight "invasion": McCain
- 2014-15: Ukraine and Russia sign the Minsk agreements meant to stop the fighting between Ukraine and two other Russian-majority areas that want to leave Ukraine. These do not stop the fighting.
- Feb 2015: Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitaries declare any agreement with “pro-Russia terrorists” was “unconstitutional” and that his unit “reserves the right to continue active military operations” -- essentially nullifying the Minsk agreements.
- Feb 2019: Before most Western media was interested in Ukraine, the reporting that was done described "neo-Nazi pogroms against the Roma, rampant attacks on feminists and LGBT groups, book bans, and state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators."
- Dec 2022: In an interview published in Germany's Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to "give Ukraine time" to build up its defences.
Given America's long history of sponsoring coups around the globe, what are the chances the 2014 ouster of Yanukovych was organic? Had a prominent Russian politician visited DC on January 6th, 2021, and fired up the crowd against the government, what would your reaction have been? When you have neo-Nazis undermining the Minsk agreements from the start and Angela Merkel admitting they were not agreed to in good faith, what does that say about Russia's diplomatic options? Is it possible that some parts of Ukraine really do want to leave?
I'd suggest checking the pinned threads in the news megathread. They go in to some detail on the Ukraine situation.
Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.
It's a semantic point, but I think it's a stretch to call Russia the aggressor. Especially so if you remember the intensified bombings of civilian areas in eastern Ukraine, which really appeared like an attempt to provoke a Russian intervention.
It’s an addendum to appease the libs by earning brownie points, and it never works
After bombing a dozen countries across the oceans into the dirt for decades, constantly opening more and more military bases closer and closer to Russian, stationing and pointing more and more nukes closer to Russia, and arming fascists in a country bordering Russia is being the aggressor
This is so similar to arming the Mujahedeen against the USSR, but Europe version
Gottem
I'm in Broken Russian Gang and I don't need fucking Google
Translation
and you are a supporter of Russian imperialism. :::
This text was translated using DeepL.
drops bombs across a country
If you have a problem with this, you should move under all the bombs we're dropping.
also
drops bombs across a country
woah, why are all these immigrants suddenly SWARMING OUR BORDERS
Imagine a conman rips you off a dozen times. It's always the same scheme, too. The same conman comes to you again with the same scheme and says "but this is a legitimate business proposition!"
Even if you do your due diligence (which you did all those other times, right?) and it looks above board, you have to realize that trusting him yet again makes you a fucking rube.
It's a simple question:
Someone lies to you a dozen times in the same way. Then they come up to you again with the same story and say they're telling the truth. No matter what you think the merits of their story are this time around, does it make sense to believe them?
stupid ass genocide apologetic rhetoric
Are you american? Why do you believe a nation led by fools and armed by the most powerful military needs your defending? And have you ever given thought to the victims of the american state?
The point 420blazeit69 is making is that for decades the US has been waging wars either proxy or direct and will point to how necessary it is for US intervention in the situation. In Afghanistan it was the first Al Qaeda then Taliban, in Iraq it was Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Al-Qaeda was originally funded by the CIA to fuck with the Soviets who were in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein was part of a US backed assassination plot to kill the leader of Iraq in 1959 and only because of that failed assassination did the Ba'ath party really rise to prominence. The US makes decisions in its own self interest and damn the consequences, but it'll also use its own consequences as further justification for continued intervention.
In this instance 420blazeit69 is referring to how NATO is an anti-soviet turned anti-russia alliance. Somehow Russia's borders seem to be right up against a bunch of US military bases. The continued expansion of NATO further east into Europe is threatening to Russia. The US has done regime change in Ukraine, the US is right on Russia's doorstep and people are shocked to see Russia react. The US damn near ended the world with the Cuban Missile Crisis. This war could have been avoided if US and NATO had just kept to themselves and in the end the people hurt by this are the Ukrainian working class being thrown into a meat grinder as western capitalists converge to further divvy up what's left.
CubanTurkish Missile CrisisIt started when America put nukes right next to russia, and it only 'became an incident' when the USSR did the same
Hey lib, maybe you should get those fucking brain worms looked at because your brain has to be fucking Swiss cheese at this point.
You won’t listen to people and frankly any advice for you to try to educate yourself will fall on deaf ears. Any further discussion is as worthless as your ideology.
Is there a single war in history that you wouldn't consider a "genocide"?
this totally got me! It is the question libs never seem to really think or care about. Or just answer with some shit about the evil, inscrutable asiaticsDuh, Putin invaded Ukraine because he's evil. My understanding of politics is based on cartoons and Marvel movies.
in 5 years, after like 5% of the shady shit done for american empire in this theater comes to light from some wikileak, every lib weasel will be claiming they didn't support this proxy war and they were lied to. but they will be viciously calling for some "multi-lateral" (aka US, UK, EU) blood-letting police action in west africa to liberate the uranium mines.
Of course, they'll say that they never supported the war, but in the next breath they'll talk about how this time it is different with whatever conflict the US is involved in at the time.
Russia invaded Ukraine, twice
Twice lmao. This liberal definitely understands Crimea.
Ah yes, 'liberal', a term we invented as a derogatory slur and has no meaning other than that.
Point of order: debate class isn't good for much more than gaining confidence and showmanship. 99% of irl debates don't take place in front of a decision maker who's ostensibly neutral.
They also dont teach the most useful retorical forms for real life like argumentum ad vultum and ppb
I never learned that I could win by simply depicting my opponents as the cringe wojack and myself as the Chad.
Russia invaded Ukraine, twice, now the second time Ukraine is fighting back with western help, how is that a "proxy war"?
I assume you would agree that the Vietnam War, in which the US intervened to help the south vietnamese against the north vietnamese who were backed by the USSR, was a proxy war? This conflict has fairly similar origins. The DPR and LPR breakaway republics were backed by Russia, while Ukraine was backed by the US/NATO in what was initially a civil war. Now Russia has intervened fully, but the Ukrainian side is still a proxy for the US. Even if we believe the DPR/LPR to be russian puppets, the same was true for south Vietnam.
The war in Donbass that started in 2014? How are you this wrong and smug at the same time?
Show
Following the US backed 2014 coup of Ukraine's elected leader, in part for not being anti-Russian enough, there were mass protests and demonstrations in Crimea against the rabidly anti-Russian (both the country and Russian speaking populace that makes up much of Eastern Ukraine) incoming coup government. It held a referendum on independence, which passes with massive popular support. Russia was asked, by Crimea, to guarantee it's security when it was clear that the coup government of Ukraine would not accept their independence, and as a result there was annexation. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian coup government was also engaged in a brutal civil war against the Donetsk and Luhansk oblast regions including daily shelling and empowering neo-Nazi groups to commit murder, torture, and terrorism against the people of those regions.
Literally all of this is historical fact that you'd know if you read literally anything on the subject, even a Wikipedia article, and is acknowledged even by those who support thr 2014 coup and subsequent Ukrainian governments.
You're calling people delusional while not even knowing the first thing about actual historical fact. Go do some reading.
NATO's proxy war was against the people of eastern ukraine and crimea. They also had their backers.
Because the Ukrainian government in power is aligned with the West politically, and the US/EU wouldn't want to fight Russia directly. While it certainly still functions in many ways like a proxy war, I feel like it was more of a proxy war until 2022 when it was contained to the eastern part of the country and the US was actively training the Ukrainian military in Ukraine (I believe they are now training them outside Ukraine to avoid sparking a direct war between NATO and Russia) concurrently with Russian military support for Luhansk and Donetsk. When Russia widened the theatre of war to the whole country last year, I think the character of the war shifted fundamentally.
The US should certainly bugger off and stop shitting on
USSRRussia's doorstep. Go overthrow some some South American governments like you used to instead.As for EU, let Ukraine in and fight for them if you like them so much, wankers. Why waste money on weapons just to fuel the war knowing full well that Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to win it? And I don't buy the "weaken the Russia" argument. The Russian military equipment is crap but that crap costs the same amount in rubles as western equipment in dollars. So, literal pennies to a dollar given the current exchange rate.
Ukraine needs to be destroyed through whatever means necessary, so yes
We did basically do the Charlie Brown football trick to them with NATO membership. The US knew full well that Russia would take military action and the US still made false promises to Ukraine because they wanted to mire the region in a proxy war.
I don't think americans and the rest of 'the west' realize how much resentment is going to be felt by Ukraine by the end of this. Zelensky has already made several remarks to the media about being honeydicked by the west to their benefit and his downfall. Remember when good old BoJo
scuttled an already settled peace talk between Ukraine and Russia on the promise of enough aid to win the war? How's that shit going? And then you have people constantly saying shit like this:The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets. Sure it's costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources [and costing Ukrainians their lives and homes] but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it.
(thank you @RandallFlagg@lemm.ee for the illustrating example, my own added text in bold brackets)
as if that message is not being heard by the people of Ukraine. I've been saying this since we've started sending weapons over there, there will be war hardened troops - some of them literal nazis - coming home from this war resentful of the people that continuously baited them into prolonging it while their own country was destroyed and looted. Thank god we're keeping a sharp eye on all of those weapons shipments to make sure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Oooops!
Ukraine was commiting genocide far before this conflict. Don’t act like they only started after this war
That's an odd way to say that the US/NATO instigated this conflict
I have found that liberals really, really, hate being exposed as equals to republicans.
I love this one because it lets you know up front that the rest of the post is going to be unhinged and will probably contain at least one use of the word "tankie".
Now I'm as conservative as they come, but I believe that landlord's rights has their origin in robbery. The landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent for even the natural produce of the earth.
"I just want my free healthcare and I don't care how many foreigners and poor people have to die for it."
Sorry sweetie, best I can do is partial cancelation of medical debt for Pell Grant recipients who start and operate a business in a disadvantaged neighborhood for at least two years.
Because the divide is about aesthetics. They want to be seen as hip. They are cultural parasites who suck any radicalism out of any movement and turn it into twitter slogans.
I've decided to stop using the words "liberal" and "conservative" as much as I can, and refer to them both merely as capitalists.
It’s fun to remind conservatives that they’re just another flavour of lib though
That's giving them too much credit. Most of the bootlickers you'll see don't own any capital and likely never will. Liberals are supremely cucked by the actual capitalists.
I was thinking more about what system they support, rather than what class they're a part of.
Destroying their sense of identity is one of the most effective things you can do.
Don't forget that liberals clapped until Michael Moore started taking about Iraq
https://youtu.be/M7Is43K6lrg
There were a lot of protests in the UK at least before Bowling For Columbine came out.
Up until 2020 the protests against the iraq war in the us were by far the biggest protest movement in history. The media simply didn't give the protest any airtime and it died on the vine. Most americans don't even know it happened.
Liberals really like making people they dont like leave the place they live
Also Technical Speaking , the Libs actually moved in with us , now they complain that they are somewhere else ...
I hope I don't get castrated for this by everyone here but I'm genuinely curious so I'm going to ask. For coxtext, I'm a dirty commie removed hippie dick suckin left wing lib (not a meme, I am literally a Liberal Democrat). Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to ask someone who disagrees with me why they think that supporting Ukraine is a bad move? The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets. Sure it's costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it. Why is this a bad thing? Should I not care if Russia gets more powerful than it already is? Am I removed?
I want you to look at the words "supporting Ukraine" then look at the rest of the paragraph you said after it. Especially the "why is this a bad thing?" part. Compare that question to the rest of what you just said. Really consider the words you typed.
Now tell me if that actually sounds like you "support Ukraine" at all, or if you've just fallen for the same Jingoistic propaganda the US uses to justify all its wars and foreign intervention. Dead Ukrainians are not supported Ukranians. If you actually support Ukraine, you should push for peace, not more weapons to be sold to their government.
Russia invaded their country with a military with the intent of taking land. What would peace look like?
Ah, silly me, I forgot, history began in Febuary 2022. War is peace, we can't negotiate with the enemy. We just need to keep selling weapons for profit, I'm sure there's no issue with that. Not like a country profiting off this conflict would encourage their citizens to think that Russia is a nation of mindless demonspawn who only understand violence. Just got to keep selling ineffectual and very profitable weapons and fight Russia down to every last man, woman and child in Ukraine. That'll help the Ukrainian people! Much better than trying for that silly peace nonsense. After all, Russia did a bad guy thing. So we can't talk, or discuss terms or try to understand them or their motivations. They the bad guys. It's not like Ukrainian's lives matter anyway, as the average smug American, I can't even point to it on the map! And there's plenty more people to die for our profits when those guys are all gone!
Russia did do a bad guy thing. Ukraine doesn’t want to let them have their land. If Russia was interested in peace, maybe they should have started with it and not attacked a neighboring nation.
You don't even know how completely ahistorical your understanding of this conflict is, while we have dissected it with exacting precision for well over a year now. We have had this conversation endlessly, over and over, with people who have a simplistic and naive view of geopolitics, nationalist brainworms, and a profound ignorance. And it's really wearing thin.
No it didnt. it did a goood guy thing. it did a Humanitarian Intervention to Prevent the Kiev Regime from Slaugherting their national Minority in the Donbass ( think Kosovo War) after Kiew Refused the Misnk 2 agreement. Your Just Extremly wrong infromed That you are wrong informed is not you Fault ,It is in the US interest to paint cartoon cersion of its Enemies that Bootlickers then repeat .. that you refuse to inform yourself and run with the stupid cartoon version told to you by the must non Trustworthy party imaginable is your Fault ,.. please grow out of it.. Your might really be wrong informed ....
Wanna check if , this is offical OSCE Report ? Can you see the Reasons for Russias Intervention ?they are Marked there on the Map ...
Show
Show
Show
Show
PS. Propaganda mostly happens to smug people that think it happens to everybody but them .. Never them, they consume Mainstream Media when the Topic is Foreign Policy and consider themself of Elite Knowlede..
Peace looks like guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality by taking NATO membership off the table and likely ceding the DPR and LPR to the Russian federation at this point.
At this point if Ukraine gained back the DPR it would almost certainly result in an ethnic cleansing.
So Russia gets to attack a sovereign nation and demand their land and peace looks like just giving it to them along with making sure the country they attacked is open to future attacks? How is that in any way a justified peace solution? What prevents Russia from doing it again?
The war didn't start with the Russian invasion, Ukrainian paramilitaries have used internationally banned cluster munitions in the donbass since 2014. Ukraine could have ensured peace and retained all of its territory by guaranteeing a ceasefire and self-determination for the eastern regions, but they did not.
NATO could have ensured peace by dissolving after the USSR was destroyed, or at least not continuing to expand east as they promised, but they did not.
This invasion is happening in the 11th hour after the total failure of diplomacy at every level. The territory Ukraine would hypothetically be losing by pursuing peace has been contested for a long time.
yes.And what prevents them from doing it again is that they would have a buffer against NATO aggression, but you probably think NATO is a benevolent peace loving organization instead of a band of butchers and war criminals hell bent on subjugating the entire planet even if it kills every human being on earth.
How far do you want to go? Absolute peace would be the end of the nation-state and the use of violence to uphold class society. That's an useless idea for this, though. Maybe a more useful goal for peace is stopping the encirclement, sanctioning, and blockading of all countries. Or not conducting coups to install puppet governments right next to geopolitical enemies. Or at the very least accepting diplomatic solutions to a war when they arise instead of slipping your proxy another check and sending a couple thousand more people to get killed.
In short, we're a long way out from peace, but NATO's actions have arguably put the world in more peril and violence than even Russia's. Even if that weren't the case, unless you're Russian yourself, you probably have a lot more you can do to pressure the NATO countries to stop fighting to the last Ukrainian, rather than somehow pray Putin into surrendering.
Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here? The war would be over in a flash of Putin simply decided to stop attacking.
The war was going on before Russia sent troops in and would likely continue even if they withdrew.
I mean at this point it would almost certainly be ethnic cleansing of the Russian speaking population.
Because NATO will use Ukraine as a base from which to destabilize, balkanize, and destroy the rf. That's the answer. Until Ukraine is forced to accept Neutrality and NATO is forced out of Ukraine Russia won't have a defense against NATO aggression.
The point is that there is a zero percent chance of this happening. The world doesn't run on hopes and dreams.
Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here?
Why do all these other countries always have to bow to these maximalist US demands? Can you name one example over the past 50 years where any country chose to do so and it made things better for them and tgeir neighbors, not just the US?
You're just parroting imperial talking points dude.
It wouldn't look like millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands dead, and more every day we prolong this and it wouldn't look like right-wing paramilitaries supported by the Ukrainian gov't doing pogroms and shelling Russian-speaking areas as they were in the days leading up to the invasion.
It's impossible for a peace to be worse than the status quo. But in all likelihood, you're looking at a Russian puppet in Eastern Ukraine, a western puppet in Western Ukraine, both selling the copper from the walls to their respective national bourgeoisie.
If Ukraine holds the Russian speaking parts of the country after the war, there's gonna be a genocide. If Russia holds the western part of Ukraine, there's going to be decades of US-backed insurgency.
Of course, this whole thing would have been avoided if the US made its support of Ukraine after the coup contingent on purging the fascists instead of giving them a seat at the table. Later on it could have been avoided by making its support contingent on following Minsk II.
If Russia holds the western part of Ukraine, there's going to be decades of US-backed insurgency.
Don't think this is too likely - in your scenario, NATO would likely break up within 5-10 years and Europe would rid itself of a lot US influence.
I think the "decades of insurgency" thing is already set in stone.
Can you conceive of a scenario where the region becomes safer than it was between when the coup got bloody and Russia invaded now that there's 100x more weapons and organized fascists?
I am begging you to go place any 4x game at all and learn what encirclement means.
- Show
Show
Show
Show
faschist beeing prevented from killing their hated minority. this is what peace will look like ,
sorry but the Slaughter of the Donbass will be stopped . And if every last "ukrainian victim" ,will be Married to the Donbass soil by their Cruel High Priest Zelensky , then so be it.. Theres A Material way to Peace (Peace thee day after the Last Ukrainian died ) and a Interlectuall way to peace ( 3th Try ! ) ... Both work , the one you Support will Kill way more then the "Kosovo" Way ,that we support.. its also Inhumane and cruel..
Peace would look like the removal of the Ukrainian threat to the Russia people
That's actually a fair point. To be totally honest, for me personally, I'm not exactly for Ukraine as much as I'm against Russia, if that makes sense. However, I do recognize that Ukraine got unfairly invaded by another country, and they should defend themselves.
If you actually support Ukraine, you should push for peace, not more weapons to be sold to their government.
I want peace, but not if that means Russia takes Ukraine against their will by force.
Others in the thread have helpfully outlined Russia's goals for this conflict, but it is important to note that this didn't come out of nowhere one day (even if that is how the western press tries to present it.) This has been escalating since the coup in Ukraine in 2013, Russia has repeatedly tried to be diplomatic, and has had their concerns dismissed. Hell, Russia doesn't even want to be antagonistic towards NATO if they don't have to be (they even tried to join them in the early 2000s).
As others have said, we don't support Russia, we aren't Russian nationalists. We do however, want to try to understand a conflict and why it happens, and if there was any way to prevent it from happening so we can make sure similar conflicts don't happen in the future.
The problem with the western media (US media in particular) is that it tends to just point to another nation and just call them bad guys, like the villain in a movie. This doesn't analyse anything or provide any preventative power (in fact, for the US, it is usually the opposite, they want wars so they can keep their military industrial complex ticking over and making profit off of death and destruction.)
If people uncritically accept that an "enemy nation" is a bad guy, they can easily fall for the next bad guy, and the next, and so on forever. The only way to actually prevent stuff like this is to try and understand why it happens.
To be totally honest, for me personally, I'm not exactly for Ukraine as much as I'm against Russia
If nothing else, your honesty is refreshing lol
Seriously, this is still about 2016 and that Russiagate bullshit for these people
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.
Why is the weakening of one of the few countries willing and able to challenge American unipolar hegemony a good thing from your perspective?
Well, it's a good thing from my perspective because I'm an American, I want my country to be powerful.
a stronger u.s. means more death squads, more right-wing coups, more death. it means no leftist movements worldwide will be allowed to gain any meaningful ground. as a citizen of the u.s. i hope every day for its collapse
I want my country to be powerful
It's not your country though, the state there is not subordinated to the social class you belong to. No matter how much you cheer on the bourgeoisie they will not stop being your class enemy.
The Americans here don't want their country to be powerful because they are leftists (actual leftists, not Democrats) and recognize that the US has been destroying leftist movements across the globe, including in their own country, for a century or even longer. Hope this helps.
You can just say youre a liberal. We're literally communists (and socialists and anarcists of various tendencies). You arent left wing. You support capitalism and the US. You support the US hegemonic global order, and its imperial exploitation of periphery nations.
We don't because we are actually communists. We support the global working class against the global ruling class. We stand against the US hegemonic order whether we are American or not, because we have an internationalist perspective.
And Russia is not being made weaker. The US shorterm gains have mostly been against their European vassals who have been made weaker as a result of this conflict. The US saw them getting more independent by having ties to the Russian Federation and buying they're oil. The US was able to shut that down and poach companies from investing in Europe to move invesrment to the US instead due to the energy crisis.
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets
you are cheering for throwing real human people into the meat grinder because it will cause negligible wear on the meat grinder's parts. Isn't that absolutely horrible? Ukraine sucks, Russia sucks, nothing comes of war between them but suffering for the innocent people who have absolutely no agency in the matter1st. we would only castrate you if you wanted free SRS for gender affirming care
2nd. we are all liberals here (this is a joke, we're commies, anarchists, and socialists)
3rd. i support the civilians of donbas and the surrounding area, who were bombed after America couped the geopolitically neutral government of Ukraine in favor of an anti-Russia government. being geopolitically neutral was a very obviously good take for the whole country, now their economy is in shambles and the average person on both sides in donbas are having a terrible time. ukraine is unlikely to recover to or go beyond its pre-1991 economy at this rate.
for context, im a czech communist and believe slavic countries should at minimum have a freedom of movement agreement, though preferably i think we should be one country, we have so many tiny countries that are prone to being bullied, couped, and imperialized by foreign powers such as america. we all speak relatively similar languages, its very easy to learn enough of another slavic language to be able to have a shared vocabulary with anyone
Not everyone has the privilege of being an American and having your consequences be an ocean away.
Snark free answer:
We believe that the expansion of the American empire is one of the greatest threats facing the world today. The strength and reach of America far surpasses anything that Russia could ever hope to achieve. Russia is only a fraction of the political and economic power of America.
We don't like Russia. It is a neoliberal and reactionary state (like Ukraine). But we do not accept the idea that blood should be shed to weaken an "unfriendly" (read: designated target) state in service of maintaining American supremecy in the area via NATO.
Tldr; why is the US supporting Ukraine a bad move? Because it supports US global supremacy.
Snark:
Liberal Democrat
I appreciate the answer, if you don't mind me asking, are you American? If so, it just seems strange to me that you don't want your own country to be a strong political and economic power. If you're not an American, then that's an understandable opinion to have. It's possible I'm misunderstanding the theme of this instance.
And also:
Tldr; why is the US supporting Ukraine a bad move? Because it supports US global supremacy.
I disagree with this because it isn't only the US that is aiding Ukraine, it's NATO.
I appreciate the answer, if you don't mind me asking, are you American? If so, it just seems strange to me that you don't want your own country to be a strong political and economic power.
I'm an American and I don't want my county to be a strong geopolitical power. It's only the rich who gain any benefit from that, and they are engaged in class war against us, so the stronger they get the more they can hurt us. Instead of (the upper class of) my nation getting stronger, I want my class to become stronger. The interests of the working people of all nations are aligned against the common foe of the rich and powerful, and the richest and most powerful people in the world benefit from America getting stronger - not us.
Our politicians are wasting money that could be spent on schools, infrastructure, healthcare, or any number of things, on pointless weapons and slaughter because it allows them to line their own pockets through the military industrial complex. How on earth does the average American benefit from that?
If so, it just seems strange to me that you don't want your own country to be a strong political and economic power. If you're not an American, then that's an understandable opinion to have. It's possible I'm misunderstanding the theme of this instance.
Because these people are actually able to have empathy and view non-Americans as equal human beings worthy of having a life
you don't want your own country to be a strong political and economic power.
If the influence of my country is a detriment to the healthy development and peoples of other countries then yes it absolutely is fine to not wish my country to be 'strong' in the sense you've defined.
NATO is an arm of US imperialism. Its a force for US hegemony.
We don't support a "strong America" because we aren't liberals, or nationalists. We are comminists, socialists, and anarchists who all have an internationalist perspective. We side with the global working class against the global ruling class.
I am American. I know you called yourself a commie jokingly, but I, and most people on Hexbear, am a principled communist.
We don't view the world through the lens of patriotism or defending "our" nation. The working class of America is also oppressed and exploited by the capitalist class of America. The exploitation is amplified when it is turned towards non-American states, especially those in the periphery. While we as Americans benefit from the exploitation of the periphery nations, we (the working class) have more in common with the working class of other countries than we do with our exploiters. Through this lens, we do not seek for our country to be "stronger" (read: globally militarily dominant). We want our country to be liberated from capitalist oppression, and we want other countries under our grip to be liberated, too.
I take your point about the US not acting alone because NATO countries are participating. I think if you look into the history and structure of NATO, you would find that the US has an outsized influence within NATO, and that most people who subscribe to realpolitik recognize that NATO is largely an arm of the US military. This is because of the global presence of the US military all over the world. Many of these countries depend on the US for defense, and the US can leverage its military strength to pressure the host countries into all kinds of policies. Look up a map of US military bases to get a real picture of the influence the US has over the NATO countries. If you really wanna make a comparison, then look at the number of foreign military bases held by the US vs. the number held by Russia or China. It's a staggering difference.
Bruv I've never had armed Chinese soldiers occupy my city to crush a pro-democracy movement, but I have starred down the barrel of US army M4s in Minneapolis.
America is NATO. Go look at the relative spending per member.
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.
Except that's not even true. How do people come up with shit ideas like this? Historically there's quite a few examples where Russia got stronger the longer a war lasted. Right now Russia is mobilizing hard and going into full wartime production of military hardware, while none of their adversaries are ramping up production, it's all just pleas and memorandums and contracts for 2032 and shit.
Does Europe really want a 1.5 million battle-hardened Russian army with 2,000 modern tanks on it's NATO border 2 years from now? With 20 million UA refugees because that country is just a black hole of destroyed livelihoods? This is insane. This shit needs to stop especially from their POV.
But yeah keep pipe dreaming up shit like "oh this war is good it weakens Russia, Tony Blinken told us on CNN". I'm sure it is.
Don't use the R-word ever again, if that's what that last word you tried to post was.
I'm a dirty commie
I am literally a Liberal Democrat
wow this place sucks now
Death to America
So if January 6th traitors were being aided with weapons from Russia we should have laid down and let them win to preserve lives?
ukraine had its jan 6th incident in 2014, the current war is a result of the coupists succeeding and the eastern part of the country not lying down and letting them win to preserve lives
A good comparison might be "what if Maine really wanted to be independent, or maybe even join Canada?"
Would it make sense to:
- Give American neo-Nazi paramilitaries free reign to attack Maine
- Seek an alliance with a group of nations expressly designed to fight a war with Canada
- Get into a bloody stalemate of a war with Canada if they invade on behalf of the people of Maine, who don't want to be here anyway
- Keep fighting that war long after the point it becomes apparent that we will not be retaking Maine
A better solution would have been to negotiate with Maine separatists, perhaps addressing the reason they want to leave, and at bare minimum act like a sovereign state with a monopoly on legitimate violence and destroy the neo-Nazi paramilitaries in your own house. Might also help to avoid the "fuck Canada" military alliance, too.
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.
We support the concept of multipolarity. We believe that that the US/NATO being the sole, dominant world hegemon is a bad thing. One big reason why we think that is because developing countries have suffered greatly under the neocolonialist policies of the World Bank and IMF, but they've been forced to accept whatever deal they're offered in order to have the market access needed to survive. In a multipolar world, these countries would have more options, and would have more ability to play major powers against each other.
We also oppose capitalism. Both the US and Russia are capitalist countries, so we oppose both of them, but we consider the US to be the higher priority, because it is more powerful. We do not believe that the interests advanced by the US government and bourgeoisie are consistent with the interests of the American people.
Sure it's costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it.
The lives of Americans are not worth more than the lives of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter. We want a swift end to the war, because, uhh, we value human life. Ukraine has been completely unwilling to negotiate or consider any territorial concessions, but realistically that's likely to happen whether we keep throwing people into a meat grinder for the next 20 years or not.
So, you believe that Ukraine should just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want?
Also, forgive me because I think I'm misunderstanding the theme of this instance. Isn't this an instance for right-wing, conservative, Republican discussions, or is it something else?
So, you believe that Ukraine should just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want?
The situation is more complex than you'll get from the media. Separatists in Donbas, an area with cultural ties to Russia, rose up after the old government was overthrown and the new government banned political parties and shut them out of the political process, and Ukraine signed a ceasefire which it then broke by shelling civilian targets. Even if Russia withdrew, it's not clear that the fighting would cease.
In any case, Ukraine has been refusing to consider any concessions at all, which is just unrealistic at this point. They'll either cede territory now or they'll cede it in 5 years with a lot more dead bodies.
Also, forgive me because I think I'm misunderstanding the theme of this instance. Isn't this an instance for right-wing, conservative, Republican discussions, or is it something else?
Lol no we're like actual communists here
Isn’t this an instance for Republican discussions?
Yes 😎 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction_(Spanish_Civil_War)
Yeah. Ukraine should give up and respect the autonomy of the Russian speaking Ukrainians who don't want to be wiped out by Galacian Nazis.
If you were a Ukrainian person Russia taking over your area would likely change things not at all. Likely it would improve your wages and working conditions. Should they be willing to get turned into soup to defend one their landlords houses? Obviously not. There in no honor in victory for them there.
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.
The way you see it is filtered through 30 layers of western media whose interests are presenting Russia as both weak and about to collapse (for almost a year) but still strong enough that if it wasnt for NATO they would steamroll all of Europe.
In reality while economically Russia might not be doing that good (mostly thanks to the neoliberal ghouls in the central bank), militarily they are really not giving their all in the Ukraine conflict, i dont even think they are halfassing things. This is presented as weakness in western media.
I'd like to ask someone who disagrees with me why they think that supporting Ukraine is a bad move?
I don't think the Ukrainian state as it is is worth supporting. It's not this bastion of democracy and freedom the western media pretends it is, it's a shitty corrupt oligarchy same as Russia.
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.
I don't care about Russia getting weaker at all tbh. I'd much rather see the west greatly weakened than Russia as they are the bigger threat to world peace and prosperity.
The reason I'm against the west helping Ukraine is they're clearly not helping them win the war, just prolong it. I'd much rather the war end right now with Russia (probably) getting the bigger piece of the cake as it stops the meat grinder on both sides. It's not because I give a shit about Russia winning, it's about stopping the killing. I don't believe people living in the war-torn area would be much better off under Russia or Ukraine as both states suck shit anyway, so stopping the killing is the best they're gonna get for the time being.
I agree with most of this but I'm not sure how you can seriously claim that you don't think that the people of the Donbass will be better off under Russia when the Ukrainian state have been shelling and murdering them since 2014. The bar for Russia here is so goddamn low.
Ukraine has been shelling them because they (Ukraine) were ignoring the ceasefire, they (Ukraine) can't ignore an actual peace treaty without serious consequences, they would just restart the war at that point and then we're back to square one.
The bar for Russia here is so goddamn low.
Sure, I'm just saying they wouldn't really go that much above the bar.
We actually have a write up on this pinned in the news megathread. To put it very mildly you seem to have a pro-american nationalist viewpoint. We don't. NATO is a threat to all human civilization and needs to be neutralized if humanity wants to still have electric lightbulbs in 2101.
Your a Fascist that supports an Assault and Persecution of a Minority. You Talk of "We" like US Capital Class interest are your interest ,..you are a Bad person that supports War and Suffering and Dehumanization , this is why you dont understand us , you are to Evil for it.
How does Russia get weaker? Their trade with the rest of BRICS has been skyrocketing, their technology is actually getting developed for once, and the country is more unified than ever. All this war has done is decouple the Russian economy from the European one, which, sure, isn't ideal, but that's already happened.
Now? The EU is more dependent on the US, and Russia is more dependent on China/India rather than the EU. Globalization is backsliding, and that's dangerous because globalization is what kept the peace after the Cold War.
Russia is weaker because the ruble is tanking, there aren’t developing better technology because we won’t give them the tools to do so, they are using up their military equipment faster than they can replace it and they are literally losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
Any day now the ghost of kiev will descend from the heavens and save the day
there aren’t developing better technology because we won’t give them the tools to do so
Ah yes of course the dirty dumb slavs are just so stupid they can't possibly invent anything new, they need the Glorious Western Master Race to give them the tools to do so.
According to Ukrainian medics, 90% of casualties are caused by artillery shells...
According to Ukrainian command, Russia is firing 5 times more artillery per day...
Russia is allegedly the side that has lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
there aren’t developing better technology because we won’t give them the tools to do so
You're talking about an industrial and scientific base that achieved every first in the space race except a manned landing on the Moon. Russia isn't the USSR, but they haven't undergone a half century of deindustrialization like the U.S. has, and their education system didn't just disappear, either.
literally losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers
Whatever else you believe about this war, you have to understand that casualty figures are speculative, we have no way of independently verifying them, and anyone who might bother to independently verify them is invested in one side or the other and is thus likely to lie.
You mean the hypersonic missile that was shot down by Ukrainian air defense? 🤣
We don't want US and NATO hegemony to continue, it's bad for millions of people in the global south. The postwar US military industrial complex is not a force for good and the closest it ever came to that was when it aligned with communists to end the fascist threat of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Bombing North Korea, bombing Cambodia and Vietnam, invading Iraq, occupying the Middle East forever, none of these were good things that any actual moral person could cotton to and say "well at least they were weakening a geopolitical enemy"
Supporting Ukraine for now means supporting their brigades like Azov and hundreds of other neo nazi informal and formal militias. It means giving them cluster bombs and mines that'll turn eastern Ukraine into a child amputee generating land for centuries. However, your "support" for this cause is ultimately meaningless because America is going to do it without the consent of her citizens because the American war machine wants to generate profits by sending off munitions to be blown up and replaced at Congress expense while insisting they don't have money to feed hungry children, house the unhoused, nor have universal healthcare. For them it's not about doing their part by helping plucky Ukrainians in their struggle, they just want more stuff blown up.
The end goal for Ukraine right now is apparently to take back the Donbass region and Crimea, these will both not happen. NATO trainers don't know how to fight a war when they don't have unlimited air superiority - the tactics they've taught have costed thousands of Ukrainian lives. Instead of fighting this stupid war, Ukraine should enter into peace negotiations (which they've tried to do!!! but NATO countries keep telling them not to). That might mean losing Crimea, maybe even Donbass - but the people who lived there, near as can be told, weren't exactly happy to be under the suzerainty of Ukraine anyway. It's a process that will come much more easily with the end of NATO and US support - just like what happened in the middle east following the withdrawal of US forces.
I think every Hexbear user hopes peace comes soon instead of bloodshed and I'm pretty sure we're also in agreement that it'd be great if the Russian working class and Ukrainian working class would stop killing eachother and overthrow their section of the bourgeoisie and find a way to work together again in solidarity.
I appreciate the long response, and I understand where you are coming from on a lot of your points:
We don’t want US and NATO hegemony to continue, it’s bad for millions of people in the global south. The postwar US military industrial complex is not a force for good and the closest it ever came to that was when it aligned with communists to end the fascist threat of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Bombing North Korea, bombing Cambodia and Vietnam, invading Iraq, occupying the Middle East forever, none of these were good things that any actual moral person could cotton to and say “well at least they were weakening a geopolitical enemy”
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you're essentially saying NATO and the US should keep to themselves, and the US should have stayed out of Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan; I agree with this. However, The Ukraine war is a different situation in this case because there are no US or NATO troops there.
Supporting Ukraine for now means supporting their brigades like Azov and hundreds of other neo nazi informal and formal militias. It means giving them cluster bombs and mines that’ll turn eastern Ukraine into a child amputee generating land for centuries. However, your “support” for this cause is ultimately meaningless because America is going to do it without the consent of her citizens because the American war machine wants to generate profits by sending off munitions to be blown up and replaced at Congress expense while insisting they don’t have money to feed hungry children, house the unhoused, nor have universal healthcare. For them it’s not about doing their part by helping plucky Ukrainians in their struggle, they just want more stuff blown up.
I see where you're coming from on this one, I can't say I fully agree, though. We're giving them cluster bombs and mines to defend their country with, not amputate children. War is a shitty situation for all involved, but Ukraine and NATO did not start it, Russia did. And, yes, the American Military Industrial Complex does like its global conflicts where it can sell and test out its fancy weapons. In this particular situation, I
supportagree with doing this because those weapons are being used for defense against an invading force that I, as an American, am opposed to.The end goal for Ukraine right now is apparently to take back the Donbass region and Crimea, these will both not happen. NATO trainers don’t know how to fight a war when they don’t have unlimited air superiority - the tactics they’ve taught have costed thousands of Ukrainian lives. Instead of fighting this stupid war, Ukraine should enter into peace negotiations (which they’ve tried to do!!! but NATO countries keep telling them not to). That might mean losing Crimea, maybe even Donbass - but the people who lived there, near as can be told, weren’t exactly happy to be under the suzerainty of Ukraine anyway. It’s a process that will come much more easily with the end of NATO and US support - just like what happened in the middle east following the withdrawal of US forces.
So just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want, I disagree with this one. I also find it hard to believe that Ukraine is ok with giving up any territory to Russia.
At the end of the day, I want Ukraine to win this war and have their country back. This outcome would also mean that Russia would come out weaker in the end. I'm ok with my tax dollars going to that.
The Donbas republics want to leave Ukraine! The people there are ethnic Russians who have voted in referendums to leave the country. The ethnic Russian population in eastern Uktain have been shelled by artilley, aimed at them by Aziv Nazis for the last 8 years.
What Russia would want them to give up is the part of the country that have democratically asserted that they want to be independent of Ukraine. Russia recognized the idpependance of the Donbas republics and entered the region in part to support their struggle (in coincides with other important geopolitical aims of the Russian Federation, chiefly Ukraine not entering NATO).
Now how does this equal "Ukraine winning and getting their country back?" The people of Donbas have been being killed and voted for their idpependance from Ukraine. Why do you want to force the people of the Donbas to be reunited to people who have been killing them?
the US actively undermines the sovereignty of countries it is intervening in by propping up native comprador groups, often right wing extremists, to act as intermediaries for its interests in order to establish plausible deniability and to insulate itself against direct retaliation, hence the term 'proxy war'. this has been the case in pretty much every single intervention in recent history and ukraine is no exception. historically, these extremist groups also have a tendency to eventually slip the leash and engage in various unsavory acts of violence in accordance with their ideology, as was the case in places like south korea, taiwan, afghanistan, iraq, and syria, with the US preferring to turn a blind eye until its core interests once again come under threat (afghanistan, iraq, syria), at which point the cycle repeats itself.
to do this, the US will typically utilize a multitude of sockpuppet NGOs and human rights groups to harness populist anger regarding legitimate grievances within the countries it is intervening in, as in the 2014/2019 hong kong protests or the 2004 ukrainian orange revolution, and allowing its pet rebels to be valorized through giving them a shitload of money and equipment, along with positive media coverage across the board. this was how the 2014 maidan coup regime was created. @SimulatedLiberalism responded with a more detailed account of what happened afterwards (looks like they left out some details regarding russian attempts at reconciliation in the form of minsks 1 & 2), but for me, the cynicism with which the US misrepresents, instrumentalizes, and ultimately aggravates the suffering of people in the countries it intervenes in is reason enough to resolutely reject the american justifications for support. the russian invasion is after the fact, the important part is that the kiev regime itself is fundamentally illegitimate as it came to power through less than democratic means and moreover does not even attempt to fairly represent the interests of all its people.
We're giving them cluster bombs and mines to defend their country with, not amputate children.
You're missing the point here though. It is an objective fact that mines and unexploded cluster munitions keep maiming and killing people long after whatever conflict they were intended for has ended, and the victims are usually disproportionally children. The stated intent of these weapons does not change that.
War is a shitty situation for all involved
Do you include your own country in the "all involved" here?
However, The Ukraine war is a different situation in this case because there are no US or NATO troops there.
You actually believe that? There's been plenty of evidence of US and NATO commanders in Ukraine doing "training" well before Russia went in there.
we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight
human lives have value even if they’re not American
What ever single normal person wants is the complete destruction of every country in NATO and their allies like the fascist dictatorship in Ukraine
For the majority of peoples and therefore nations, to be sovereign, they have to be able to play the various competing powers against eachother - one (even a declining one like RU) going down is not good for the stability of the world and will allow the heirs of white supremacist colonialists to run rampant as they have done for the past few centuries.
are there any other peoples that you'd like to see destroyed and weren't you satisfied with 'weakening unfriendlies' in the middle east?
The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets. Sure it's costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it.
I'm really skeptical of the "we're grinding Russia down with this!" narrative because the USSR had been cranking out war materiel to compete with the USA for literal decades; the RF has been working around Western sanctions for years and IIRC have been really focused recently on economic self-sufficiency in a few spheres.
They're also the country with the most tanks in their fleet (total, not necessarily deployed), and they have air superiority, which Ukraine can't really challenge.
Honestly it looks like Ukraine will lose, but not before defense contractors get to sign contracts worth billions of dollars replenishing the West's armories.
Also by itself Ukraine's government isn't worth supporting, they've rolled back labor rights, allow the existence of fascist military units (Azov Battalion is part of Ukraine's version of a Gendarmerie - a military unit that polices civilians), and they're corrupt as fuck, they're privatizing aggressively during wartime.
thank you for looking into it
we got a live one bears!
also good
