Ukraine told critics of the pace of its three-month-old counteroffensive to "shut up" on Thursday, the sharpest signal yet of Kyiv's frustration at leaks from Western officials that say its forces are advancing too slowly.
Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn't say it's "okay," but the blame isn't just on their side.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I'd like to condemn Russian escalation, but it's a little hard for me to do so if I don't have an answer to that question.
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it's a fair point.
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".
Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could've be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.
This is like saying that the US should've invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There's always another way besides war and violence.
There isn't always another way besides violence. The German invasion of the USSR was a war of extermination. Laying down and dieing is not morally superior.
Fair enough. If you're defending yourself, then I suppose that's true. Which is incidentally another reason Ukraine has the right to defend themselves.
I don't think the US dumping tons of weapons is actually helping defend themselves, it just seems to be getting conscripts killed. If they had actually negotiated after that karkiv offensive maybe you could have made the case?
Well it's keeping them having some sovereignty over their own country instead of it falling in 3 days like everyone thought. Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory? That's the question and considering how hard they're fighting, it doesn't look like they do. If the average Ukrainian wants the ability to defend and keep their home, then I want that for them, too.
And war is unpredictable. Maybe Russia will lose the appetite for war soon, or maybe Ukraine will want to negotiate (but I'm sure they want to take what they can before then). Winter is coming.
Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory?
It already has, and not in the way you think. In 2013 Ukraine had a president unwilling to take an IMF deal, and opted for the Russian one. The maidan coup happened and now they have a president who does whatever the money men want.
Even now there's a website up for openly privatizing Ukraine, and the ultimate outcome in a NATO victory explicitly is going to be the privatization of the breadbasket of Europe.
I mean, ya, the IMF sucks and further privatization of Europe is bad. But that doesn't mean you have to support Russia while they bomb and kill civilians or make fun of Ukrainian citizens for trying to defend their home and their lives.
If Russia was after lives they would be bombing the shit out of Ukrainian infrastructure. They currently hold the territories where the people who were being bombed by the Ukrainian government live.
They have been bombing tons of infrastructure. They've been hitting all over cities, hospitals, dams and reservoirs, etc. They're probably not going to bomb the places they currently control for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean they're not hitting places with civilians they don't currently control.
The extent of "support" for Russia has been extremely critical on hexbear. You all just say that anyone not falling over themselves to slava ukraini is a Russia supporting Putin bot.
Not in any of the threads that hit the defederated servers at least. I've seen maybe two people from hexbear ever criticize Russia or mention something they did bad, while everyone else constantly shits on and memes on Ukraine and their defense effort. You guys say you do, but don't actually do it.
Well you've been on lemmy for 3 months, and just started running into us in only the last month, meanwhile we've been chatting and having struggle sessions about this type of shit for years to various degrees. (especially since 22)
Ever since the illegal dissolution of the USSR, Russia has been a capitalist shithole, the treatment of LGBT people there sucks. They are what we made them, politically.
You construe a lack of support for Ukraine with 'shitting' on them. I want to see the US drop support for Ukraine because it would mean that people like you and I stop dying on a daily basis for lines on a map. There have been many chances for a negotiated end, and from where I'm sitting the US went out of its way to blow those opportunities.
The US did blow those opportunities because the people who own the US government profit wildly from this conflict. With no Afghanistan, they need another endless war to fill their wallets up with.
Have you considered that maybe that's because of the threads that you pay attention to? Step outside of the Ukraine war stuff if you want to actually test that hypothesis of yours.
Oh! Well then we see eye-to-eye in that case. I think Western support to Ukraine should be limited to accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid, not weapons. I think Ukraine should be open to ceding territory in negotiations in order to end the war and prevent further loss of life. There's always another way besides war and violence. I'm all about peace, glad we're in agreement.
There are countless of well-documented examples of the American empire sponsoring terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations against Cuba. To this day the American empire upholds an illegal an unprovoked blockade of the island as well as occupying the land on which the Guantanamo naval base and torture black site is placed.
Before the revolution, America ran Cuba as a colony, leeching off the hard work of Cubans. If anything, the history of American relations with Cuba has been one of profound violence.
But okay, most of the times they made sure to put in a middle-man to do the actual dirty work which absolves them of all sin I guess.
That's basically what Russia was doing in Ukraine by propping up pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. But I guess it's fine when they do that, bendy they succeeeded, it's only bad when America does it, because they failed.
And are you saying you would've been fine if the US did a full-scale invasion of Cuba then, because they did all that other stuff? Otherwise, that was all unrelated and besides the point.
Right, but they didn't full out invade, like Russia is doing. They definitely considered it, though lol. And it would've sucked for the people of Cuba if they did, just like it did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, or the populace of every other country that's ever been attacked.
I mean the US didn't. US-backed Cuban exiles did. There's a big difference. If US had attacked with it's full might, you guys would've been saying Cuba should surrender as much as Ukraine should right now, because there is no way they would have won. They would've been a smear of an island, probably closer to Haiti. They goodness Kennedy didn't listen to his warhawk generals on this point at least.
Putting American boots on the ground is not the only way that the United States brings death and destruction to a region to further (or protect, as some Amercan politicians call it) American, and more broadly western, hegemony (or American interests, as craven ghouls call it). The use of proxy forces like in Afghanistan during the 80s, coups like those carried out in Chile in 73 and, well really most of South America in the latter 20th century, sanctions against countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK (which are explicitly put in place to make life worse for the people living there and produce people who would be willing to commit violent acts to overthrow the local government not adequately subordinate to the United States), facilitating the mass murder of people opposed to the pro-america regime or too supportive of communism like in Indonesia and South Korea several times, all bring massive loss of life and terrible suffering. The crimes against humanity carried out by the United States and on their behalf are so terrible and widespread that it is difficult to name a country that has not had blood spilled to advance American hegemony in it. Like Cuba.
At that though, the United States is no stranger to directly deploying troops to crush opposition to American hegemony. Like in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan again, and the RSFSR immediately after the revolution. War is terrible, but it is not out of the question to enforce American hegemony.
In Ukraine, the United States is not interested in preserving democracy or the self determination of the Ukranian people. It never has been in any of the countries or among any of the organizations that receive its support. The United States ultimately wants to have control over the Russian economy to use as a source of cheap labor and resources. That was the USSR and later Russia were denied, several times, entry into NATO, an ostensibly defensive alliance for the region that Russia is in, and the purpose of the rapid privatization of post-soviet economies after '91. Ukraine is caught in the terrible position of being used to advance the United States' goal in the region. Support for Ukraine will be dropped when the United States government believes that it is no longer useful or viable to support them against Russia, after who knows how many people are dead and permanently injured, and how many more whose entire lives have been destroyed.
Russia has fought through proxy forces and propaganda a ton as well. They were doing the same thing in Ukraine in Crimea and the Donbas regions and it's partially what led to this whole mess. Yes, America bad I would love for them to leave all those other countries alone. But that doesn't mean no one else can do evil in the world. Blame the people causing the dead and permanently injured, bombing out whole cities with civilians, not the ones giving Ukraine a chance to defend against it. The difference is the US was the aggressor in those other scenarios while in this one they are just helping out the defender. Yes it's to help their own interests, but the Ukrainians don't care, they just want someone to help them defend their land and home and families.
Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia
Of course. They just don't have a right to drag the rest of Ukraine into Russia at the same time. On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement on the grounds of "why should I care if a country's capitalist class loses some of its economic base?"
should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country?
No, but if that's what was happening we could all then be criticizing a peacetime government for acting injustice upon segments of its population, instead of advocating for an end to a war. The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to "save" a group of people isn't one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn't we be in a constant state of war everywhere? (Since there's pretty much at least one oppressed group in every country worldwide at least one other country could claim a right to "protect" them based on shared heritage or language.)
Just because Russia (might) have the military capability to do so when all these other countries might not doesn't mean they should.
On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement
The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to "save" a group of people isn't one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn't we be in a constant state of war everywhere?
I don't see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously. If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, "No, and we'll use force to stop you," and another country says, "Hey, seperatists, we'll support you," then where do you stand on all that? You're pro-seperatist while being anti-supporting seperatists? That doesn't make any sense, you could look at just about any successful seperatist movement and see that they recieved foreign backing from someone and that it was likely a crucial factor in winning, for example, French support in the American revolution. This foreign support is generally less motivated by altruism and more by the assisting nation's geopolitical goals, but it's all the same to the seperatists who need it to survive.
To me your stance is coming across as, you support the seperatists, but also they should've backed down immediately when Ukraine used force to avoid a war, but in that case it seems like you don't actually support the seperatists in practice.
I don't see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously.
They're about different things. One is an opinion about bottom-up, community activism and the principle of self-determination, and is a belief that exists independently of the material conditions and reality of global politics. France only supported the Americans in order to "get back" at England. They later regretted it when the Americans supported the French Revolution. When I say I support separatism, I am thinking specifically about how Lenin released all of the Russian Empire's colonial nations, regardless of how it might adversely impact the Soviet states' security prerogatives.
If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, "No, and we'll use force to stop you," and another country says, "Hey, seperatists, we'll support you," then where do you stand on all that?
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn't go "yeah, we love what you're trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly", they went "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals." Likewise, Russia, having lost Ukraine (and the Eastern Bloc), is trying to regain its lost glory, and it just so happens that they can exploit Donbas separatism in order to do so.
My understanding of the Donbas is that it was largely populated by Russians from the Russian SFSR during the era of open borders within the Soviet States, which also makes things different than Catalans, Kurds, and Scots, for example.
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn't go "yeah, we love what you're trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly", they went "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals."
Saying "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals" is still supporting them. That's my point, seperatists often rely on geopolitical rivals supporting them for ulterior motives. You can't really cleanly separate bottom-up political activism from opportunistic rivals with ulterior motives, because in practice the former will generally rely on the latter. Generally when you're fighting a civil war, you don't have the luxury of turning up your nose at offers of assistance for the sake of purity. So if your position is supporting seperatists movements except when they recieve foreign backing, you're not going to find yourself supporting many seperatists movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
If this was still like 2018, I'd be out there supporting the various brokered deals that included Russia at the table. Framing the current conflict as a civil war is inaccurate, as it lost the characteristics of a civil conflict when Russia attacked the rest of Ukraine in February 2022. What was a protracted, simmering war between a fraction of the Ukrainian army and Russian-backed Separatists on the fringes of the nation's territory, with a dynamic akin to plenty of regions around the world throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
So if your position is supporting separatist movements except when they receive foreign backing, you're not going to find yourself supporting many separatist movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
I wouldn't say that's my position. I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms, since it means the destruction of people's livelihoods, and heritages, which of course cost many lives in the process too. People here often talk about ending the war in Ukraine as fast as possible because of the violence, so wouldn't the morally and ethically consistent viewpoint be to support what would prevent war too, not to argue for or justify foreign interventionism? No war but class war, you know?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn't have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn't become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn't then ask to join the French Empire.
As an aside, France's support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we're to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn't gonna be good for Russia long term.
I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms
Ok so what happens if a government says, "No you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?" Nations aren't generally keen on giving up territory, especially in cases where the relationship is exploitative. Renouncing force means renouncing the threat of force, which can often leave very little leverage for a seperatist movement to work with.
Personally though, I'm inclined to agree somewhat with your point that seperatism isn't always worth the conflict, and for that reason I wouldn't necessarily agree with the stance of being predisposed to support seperatist movements. Imo, it's better to take a pragmatic view, evaluating the specific conditions on a case by case basis.
I would argue that if Russia withdrew and the seperatist movements surrendered, there would still be a conflict between the Russian speaking population and the Ukrainian government. I suppose it'd be possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn't have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn't become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn't then ask to join the French Empire.
I don't think it's unreasonable that the DNR and LPR would want to join Russia for legitimate security reasons at this point. If you want to label them as Russian proxies and Ukraine as a US proxy, I don't mind, but I think the reality is that while both are influenced by foreign governments, they also both represent some degree of genuine support.
As an aside, France's support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we're to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn't gonna be good for Russia long term.
I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
what if....no you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?
This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.
...possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
I mean, I don't think there's any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I'm sure there are people who'd want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we're already talking about the reverse.
I can't think of specific examples but there's definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to "political solutions" meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)
These aren't good or something I'm arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.
I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
Me too, that's why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.
I'm perfectly fine with a negotiated settlement. Ideally, the areas where more people want to stay in Ukraine should stay with Ukraine and the areas where more people want to join Russia should join Russia. That would minimize the amount of displacement while allowing people to live under the government of their choice. My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.
the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning
This was the biggest example that came to my mind and it's not exactly comparable but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation.
My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.
For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements "no". I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).
While I've been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.
it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation
Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).
I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders.
That's kind of a fair point I think but I don't think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it's a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should've cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won't be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.
I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
They did do that. My coworkers aunt was finally granted Russian citizenship and was ecstatic. They granted citizenship to a number of refugees in the war.
Look, the heckin' wholesome slava ukrainis didn't know where he was so they had to shell everywhere! It's like playing Battleship, except it's mostly other random innocent people that you hit
Yes, but the liberal pro-EU protestors got sidelined by literal neo-Nazis. The following President was basically handpicked by the US Ambassador. There's plenty of western media from 2015-2021 about the integration of Azov into the Ukrainian military structure, the rehabilitation of World War II collaborators, and the suppression of the Russian language. The people of the East are, in principle, just as entitled to wish to join Russia as western Ukraine is to join the EU.
A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.
It's so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.
Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a "counteroffensive." Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don't need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they've lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia's demands before more lives are needlessly lost.
Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.
As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from 'The Bad Country,' they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they're facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.
Most of the people I'm talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don't believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.
By "the Uighers" I assume you're talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It's 90+% approval for China overall, I can't find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.
Who said anything about despots? These are opinions of people, not rulers. Citizens of
Africa, Asia, South America have suffered under US hegemony, so they view the Russian State different than you do.
Nearly half (46%) globally said that the European Union, United States and Nato were doing too little to assist Ukraine, while 11% said they are doing too much
Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.
Or in other words, the majority of the world supports Russia.
As your quote shows the article you're citing from doesn't only look at peoples' views of the war in Ukraine, but shows a big divide between progressive and conservative nations. Eg. the majority in SE Asia, the Middle East and Africa doesn't care as much for Putin invading Ukraine as they do for him stomping on the gays and progressives.
American cultural conflicts are not world politics. This has nothing to do with "the gays" or progressives (meaning less term).
Cuba is against NATO expansion. If you think it's because Cuba allegedly hates gays you need to study both history and recent events before forming political opinions.
Sure, for what it's worth I could concede that a global majority might approve of support for Ukraine according to this data. Looking at raw data from: https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/initiatives/the-copenhagen-democracy-summit/dpi-2023/
That figure may not be accurate however, especially because I can't see that they computed a weighted global total by population. They extrapolate to obtain each "nationally representative result" by taking into account the respondents' age, gender and education to mitigate selection bias. I have my doubts about extrapolating like that, but okay. The main problem is when you check the global total, it's just an unweighted average of all nations.
Show
Highlighted in orange: Top - unweighted average of all nations, Bottom - reported figure from the author
Each country has ~1000 respondents, so there isn't a proportional representation of each country based on its population - small countries (mostly imperial core, as it happens) have an outsized effect on the average.
Nearly half (46%) globally said that the European Union, United States and Nato were doing too little to assist Ukraine, while 11% said they are doing too much
I do think the paper is flawed but not useless. I wasn't really the one who posted it though, it's the primary source for this claim in the other article.
Lol do you people go around linking to your comments on hexbear so your 'comrades' can come upvote you? Hexbear comments are always unusually upvoted, even when it's a controversial topic or if the comment itself is braindead (most of them are).
It's both funny and sad that the reddit diaspora culture you're immersed in has carried over such a tradition of pointless snark and petty posturing that you see people supporting each other's points and can't imagine anything but a sinister conspiracy to derail you, the main character.
Like for the first time in maybe your whole life you're experiencing social media without a big corporate hand on the cultural scale, and you can either learn or continue to shit your pants amusingly.
"My terminally online movement is not full of fascists and useful idiots parroting fascist propaganda because of, uhm, history"
Yes, tell me again about the freikorps while every day I see another hazoid being besties with Nazis, or being a fascist themselves.
I don't know if you're a fascist, I'm currently not interested enough to go checking.
how you call me terminally online
Because you're on Lemmy defending legacy of a pejorative identifier when confronted with the fact that the modern online tankie community has produced a number of fascist-aligned notable persons over the last years, and keeps spreading and regurgitating fascist propaganda because of the common alignment against the West.
The history is important. In this conversation, history is irrelevant. Stop making it about your honor
"Please stop pointing out we're friends with fascists, it hurts our feefees. Don't you know that muh history means I'm very cool and honorable despite being an internet warrior".
You're one step removed from a nationalist. Except you're feeding your insecurity with a different flavour of a myth.
You're not beating the allegations, you're treating this the same way a nationalist would. If you don't see the irrelevance of historical anecdotes here, well, I guess that explains why you're a tankie.
Haz, Maupin, Dore and all their sphere are fascist. One guy literally went through being an "anti-imperialist" tankie to going to Tucker Carlson and talking about how wokeness is destroying West or something. Even in comments here I see tankies gladly buying and spreading Russian bullshit about Ukrainians being Nazis. Or how when I recently mentioned Russia making genocidal policies against trans people, a lot of people from a tankie sub began whataboutisming me about that. The fact that you totally ignored my larger point (tankie community producing fascists), which you apparently know about and "dunk all the time" on. The fact that you tried to deflect from that by bringing up 50-years-old historical anecdotes which are irrelevant to this particular context. It's in the same vein as when Israel tries to deflect from accusation of fascism and apartheid by bringing up antisemitism and Holocaust. Of course, what Israel does is much worse than being a breeding ground for online fascists, but the mechanism of deflection here is similar. Don't try to strawman me on this. No matter which honorable or victimized identity you use, this remains a deflection.
You really need to start using real words for things. You are using "tankie" to describe everything under the sun right now and I literally have no idea what you're saying anymore.
I've actually been extremely consistent with my usage of the term throughout this conversation. The people I'm talking to keep using it for everyone under the sun, that's true. From a member of a third-world communist party 50 years ago to themselves to Joseph Stalin. My focus is currently on the online English-speaking community/ies of the last 5-10 years who would fit the term
Who else would we talk about in a Lemmy conversation about people on Lemmy supporting Russia? I've been telling you the Vietnamese don't matter in this context from the very beginning.
EDIT: I've made myself clear what I was talking about. The context was there, you were the first one to bring up the 20th century people. I could take some responsibility as the term is vague, but too many of you went for the dunks and posturing, making up shit about what I meant on the fly. The problem that truth here is relative and if enough of you decide that is what happened, whatever context I had in mind wouldn't matter. It's easy to be cynical about the whole interaction for both of us. Also good for the ego, as being wrong hurts and we all know it. I'm off to bed, will see if you add something else here later. It wasn't nice to talk to you, bye.
Please learn reading comprehension in regards the article in question. Or to my message. You seem to have trouble understanding at least one of the two
I don't like being lied about. I assume it's you not understanding either what I wrote or the article. Or you just don't care and I'm just feeding a troll
Gaslighting is when someone shows you your own copy and pasted words and then tells you that an article is a relevant reply to your statement.
You're a fucking baby. If you can't engage with something so basic without having a tantrum and pulling reddit debatebro cliches out of a hat then why the fuck are you still here? I told you to act like you gave a shit or shut the fuck up. Why do you refuse both?
This is literally the gaslighter tactic. The moment you call out the behavior you're framed as the unstable one. I think I've made it clear that you're either wrong about the meaning of my words or you're actively lying about them, which I think is the most probable here as you keep being a POS about all of this.
If you think there is a literal one-to-one correlation between the article and my words, you could've shown it to me hours ago. You didn't. I did read the article, it's not there. You keep pushing your bullshit without elaborating, so yeah, you're a troll.
One last try before I block you and go with my day, this is not productive at all.
Gaslighting is when you make someone question their own senses. I quoted your exact words to you.
Stop draping yourself in the cloak of abuse and mental health issues just because you're a fucking lazy idiot who wants an easy way out of being criticized for your nazi propaganda talking points.
It's really fucking gross, you should be ashamed of yourself and fuck you.
Oh no what will I do without your continued petulant intransigence and mocking of abuse victims
Thank goodness you made a dramatic pronouncement like that instead of just fucking off hours ago like I suggested. Imagine being the main character and not having a mic drop.
Pretend I'm talking about all communists. If I wanted to do so, I would use the term "communists". But I don't see a reason to attack the group I myself belong to
Oh, which successful communists are you talking about?
Also, double genocide theory being holocaust trivialization still applies as it refers to calling the USSR fascist, if you think it is an irrelevant insuniation take it up with the Jewish holocaust scholars.
As I said to the person below, learn reading comprehension or fuck off. I don't want to engage in a conversation when I'm repeatedly being gaslit on what I said.
It's impossible to insult successful communists, as there are none. Unless you lower your bar enough to ignore glaring issues like ethnic cleansing of "unloyal" peoples and recreation of the capitalist mode of production.
I'm not interested in the "no U" back-and-forth. If you want to defend online tankie community producing prominent fascists, then do so without deflecting. If you don't, then stop acting indignant
I didn't mention Holocaust anywhere you paranoid fuck. Stop deflecting. If you link the double genocide thing once more I will assume you're just here to defend the resettlements. Which kinda proves my point.
Do you have anything to say about the prominent online fascists or fascist Russia apologists coming from the tankie community, some still publicly identifying as tankies?
I literally lost ancestors to the holocaust. Stop carrying water for fascists by equating the people who ended the holocaust to them. You're doing work to trivialize the holocaust, according to literally every prominent Jewish historian who studied the holocaust and has spoken about double genocide theory. This is literally a mainstream position outside of communist circles.
Either learn to prioritize not giving the nazis ammo over your desire to be a mini-mcCarthy or learn what the actual differences between communism and fascism are instead of relying on propaganda that benefits the nazis.
Fuck off you gaslighting fascist pig, losing ancestors to Holocaust doesn't prevent you from being a fascist POS which you proved enough to me already. I have zero respect for you as you keep lying about my words without a pause and kept deflecting criticisms of fascist behavior and ethnic cleansings by deceptively framing my position as something it is not. Which is the same egregious thing fascist supporters of Israeli apartheid are known for. Fuck off and go deport Kalmyks or whatever your favourite hobby is
I am not lying about your words. I am telling you that equating communists and fascists (which you have repeatedly done) is incorrect, and holocaust trivialization, according to mainstream liberal historians, which you could literally look up right now instead of continuing to show your own ass and be incredibly offensive to a communist organizer who lost family to the fucking holocaust.
Is double genocide theory in the room with us now? Why do you keep bringing this irrelevant shit up? How do some fucks equivocating USSR and Nazi Germany relate to the repackaged Russian fascist propaganda I see coming daily from the tankie community? How does it justify the defense of ethnic cleansing you've engaged in this conversation? A whole bunch of people sharing community with you came out of woodwork to lie about me the moment I mention the really bad fucking things I see daily among people like you. You all lie, you reframe my words into something entirely different, you keep bringing stuff from time periods completely unrelated to the fucked up shit I see in front of me. My original message had nothing to do with neither USSR nor Nazi Germany, it's you who decided to push the conversation towards "successful communists" and the DGT. I see the same fascist tactics of deflection as I'd see from Nazis or Israel apartheid supporters. "Oh, you've criticized our fascist behavior? But we've suffered greatly from Nazis, so it's you who's the real fascist actually". Your offense should be directed towards yourself internalizing fascist tactics and not me calling you out on them.
Is double genocide theory in the room with us now?
Yes, you repeatedly are equating communists with fascists which is the main rhetoric it uses to advance holocaust trivialization, you ass.
How does it justify the defense of ethnic cleansing you've engaged in this conversation?
Didn't you just accuse me of gaslighting?
Lmao.
repackaged Russian fascist propaganda I see coming daily from the tankie community?
You need to open a history book specialized in how fascist systems exist and operate. Russia is literally just a belligerent bourgeois democracy. Putin is beholden to the oligarchs, a word for capitalists with an orientalist connotation. There is not the transition from primarily extracting increases of productivity from abstract surplus labor value to concrete labor value which marks fascism economically.
What "tankie community" lol? There isn't a unified one. Do you mean us, who generally oppose the war and want a negotiated peace so Ukraine stops losing the war so expensively (in blood of conscripts)?
There's no equating, I specified which things I have issues with. You've been deflecting from those things by bringing up Holocaust, which is a tactic used by fascists. Also saying that there are prominent fascists who call themselves tankies or communists is not related to Holocaust in any way. The only way you can link it is by malicious use of the aforementioned tactic.
defense of ethnic cleansing
When I bring up ethnic cleansings done by USSR and the first thing you do is deflecting by lying that I said they were equal to Holocaust, this is defense of ethnic cleansing. When called out on that, you continued to do so, so I can't write it off as you being unaware of what you were doing. The moment you called me out on the thing you thought I was doing, I corrected you. When you got called out, you just ignored it and kept doing the same thing.
Russia is just a [...] democracy
Thank you for verifying you don't know shit. Trivializing fascism we go.
You need to open a history book specialized in how fascist systems exist and operate.
Generally it's a bad idea to hinge the whole question of whether a country is fascist on a single esoteric economic factor. Which part are you talking about: the slave labor? the war economy? You're a bit word salad-y there.
What “tankie community” lol?
The one which decided to come out on me with your fascist deflections. Or the same which keep calling Ukrainians Nazis, following the same propaganda tactic used in the War on Terror. The same from which fascists like Haz, Maupin, and Hinkle sprouted and got popular in. Or the same which tried to do whataboutism when I brought up Russian genocidal policies on trans people around a month ago. Those which pretend that created via a Nazi coup DNR is actually an embattled Russian minority defending itself and not a blatant puppet-state. The one that tried to justify Russian invasion to me countless of times, the one that parroted Russian narratives on Bucha. What I'm doing here is basically describing my every second interaction with tankies to you.
Obviously there's not a single community, but there are large nodes, and even if there were none, this wouldn't mean the patterns of behavior can't be criticized.
So if a bigger country conscripts their people to invade you you should checks notes take the moral high road, get overrun and surrender as soon as possible
Do you have any idea how many people Russia sacrificed to repel the Germans? Do you think the world would be better had they just followed your advice?
The comment threads here are weird. Who, in their right mind, would ever support a country like Russia? It's mind blowing.
It's not supporting Russia to be critical of one-sided narratives or to call for peace for the sake of minimizing loss of life.
Russia is welcome to GTFO at any time.
The war was already going on before Russia sent troops in.
And that makes it okay for them to escalate it, how?
Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn't say it's "okay," but the blame isn't just on their side.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I'd like to condemn Russian escalation, but it's a little hard for me to do so if I don't have an answer to that question.
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".
Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it's a fair point.
Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could've be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.
This is like saying that the US should've invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There's always another way besides war and violence.
There isn't always another way besides violence. The German invasion of the USSR was a war of extermination. Laying down and dieing is not morally superior.
Fair enough. If you're defending yourself, then I suppose that's true. Which is incidentally another reason Ukraine has the right to defend themselves.
I don't think the US dumping tons of weapons is actually helping defend themselves, it just seems to be getting conscripts killed. If they had actually negotiated after that karkiv offensive maybe you could have made the case?
Well it's keeping them having some sovereignty over their own country instead of it falling in 3 days like everyone thought. Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory? That's the question and considering how hard they're fighting, it doesn't look like they do. If the average Ukrainian wants the ability to defend and keep their home, then I want that for them, too.
And war is unpredictable. Maybe Russia will lose the appetite for war soon, or maybe Ukraine will want to negotiate (but I'm sure they want to take what they can before then). Winter is coming.
It already has, and not in the way you think. In 2013 Ukraine had a president unwilling to take an IMF deal, and opted for the Russian one. The maidan coup happened and now they have a president who does whatever the money men want.
Even now there's a website up for openly privatizing Ukraine, and the ultimate outcome in a NATO victory explicitly is going to be the privatization of the breadbasket of Europe.
I mean, ya, the IMF sucks and further privatization of Europe is bad. But that doesn't mean you have to support Russia while they bomb and kill civilians or make fun of Ukrainian citizens for trying to defend their home and their lives.
If Russia was after lives they would be bombing the shit out of Ukrainian infrastructure. They currently hold the territories where the people who were being bombed by the Ukrainian government live.
They have been bombing tons of infrastructure. They've been hitting all over cities, hospitals, dams and reservoirs, etc. They're probably not going to bomb the places they currently control for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean they're not hitting places with civilians they don't currently control.
I mean they haven't. You should look at what the US did in Iraq for a comparison.
The extent of "support" for Russia has been extremely critical on hexbear. You all just say that anyone not falling over themselves to slava ukraini is a Russia supporting Putin bot.
Not in any of the threads that hit the defederated servers at least. I've seen maybe two people from hexbear ever criticize Russia or mention something they did bad, while everyone else constantly shits on and memes on Ukraine and their defense effort. You guys say you do, but don't actually do it.
EDIT: I meant to say *federates severs.
Well you've been on lemmy for 3 months, and just started running into us in only the last month, meanwhile we've been chatting and having struggle sessions about this type of shit for years to various degrees. (especially since 22)
Ever since the illegal dissolution of the USSR, Russia has been a capitalist shithole, the treatment of LGBT people there sucks. They are what we made them, politically.
You construe a lack of support for Ukraine with 'shitting' on them. I want to see the US drop support for Ukraine because it would mean that people like you and I stop dying on a daily basis for lines on a map. There have been many chances for a negotiated end, and from where I'm sitting the US went out of its way to blow those opportunities.
The US did blow those opportunities because the people who own the US government profit wildly from this conflict. With no Afghanistan, they need another endless war to fill their wallets up with.
As always, death to america
No worries, they're getting the war with China all queued up as we speak.
Yeah good luck with that lmao
Please someone make it end lol
Have you considered that maybe that's because of the threads that you pay attention to? Step outside of the Ukraine war stuff if you want to actually test that hypothesis of yours.
Oh! Well then we see eye-to-eye in that case. I think Western support to Ukraine should be limited to accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid, not weapons. I think Ukraine should be open to ceding territory in negotiations in order to end the war and prevent further loss of life. There's always another way besides war and violence. I'm all about peace, glad we're in agreement.
There are countless of well-documented examples of the American empire sponsoring terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations against Cuba. To this day the American empire upholds an illegal an unprovoked blockade of the island as well as occupying the land on which the Guantanamo naval base and torture black site is placed.
Before the revolution, America ran Cuba as a colony, leeching off the hard work of Cubans. If anything, the history of American relations with Cuba has been one of profound violence.
But okay, most of the times they made sure to put in a middle-man to do the actual dirty work which absolves them of all sin I guess.
That's basically what Russia was doing in Ukraine by propping up pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. But I guess it's fine when they do that, bendy they succeeeded, it's only bad when America does it, because they failed.
And are you saying you would've been fine if the US did a full-scale invasion of Cuba then, because they did all that other stuff? Otherwise, that was all unrelated and besides the point.
They tried, using a proxy force of Cuban exiles.
Right, but they didn't full out invade, like Russia is doing. They definitely considered it, though lol. And it would've sucked for the people of Cuba if they did, just like it did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, or the populace of every other country that's ever been attacked.
Correct, they were repelled from the beaches by Socialists
I mean the US didn't. US-backed Cuban exiles did. There's a big difference. If US had attacked with it's full might, you guys would've been saying Cuba should surrender as much as Ukraine should right now, because there is no way they would have won. They would've been a smear of an island, probably closer to Haiti. They goodness Kennedy didn't listen to his warhawk generals on this point at least.
Putting American boots on the ground is not the only way that the United States brings death and destruction to a region to further (or protect, as some Amercan politicians call it) American, and more broadly western, hegemony (or American interests, as craven ghouls call it). The use of proxy forces like in Afghanistan during the 80s, coups like those carried out in Chile in 73 and, well really most of South America in the latter 20th century, sanctions against countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK (which are explicitly put in place to make life worse for the people living there and produce people who would be willing to commit violent acts to overthrow the local government not adequately subordinate to the United States), facilitating the mass murder of people opposed to the pro-america regime or too supportive of communism like in Indonesia and South Korea several times, all bring massive loss of life and terrible suffering. The crimes against humanity carried out by the United States and on their behalf are so terrible and widespread that it is difficult to name a country that has not had blood spilled to advance American hegemony in it. Like Cuba.
At that though, the United States is no stranger to directly deploying troops to crush opposition to American hegemony. Like in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan again, and the RSFSR immediately after the revolution. War is terrible, but it is not out of the question to enforce American hegemony.
In Ukraine, the United States is not interested in preserving democracy or the self determination of the Ukranian people. It never has been in any of the countries or among any of the organizations that receive its support. The United States ultimately wants to have control over the Russian economy to use as a source of cheap labor and resources. That was the USSR and later Russia were denied, several times, entry into NATO, an ostensibly defensive alliance for the region that Russia is in, and the purpose of the rapid privatization of post-soviet economies after '91. Ukraine is caught in the terrible position of being used to advance the United States' goal in the region. Support for Ukraine will be dropped when the United States government believes that it is no longer useful or viable to support them against Russia, after who knows how many people are dead and permanently injured, and how many more whose entire lives have been destroyed.
Russia has fought through proxy forces and propaganda a ton as well. They were doing the same thing in Ukraine in Crimea and the Donbas regions and it's partially what led to this whole mess. Yes, America bad I would love for them to leave all those other countries alone. But that doesn't mean no one else can do evil in the world. Blame the people causing the dead and permanently injured, bombing out whole cities with civilians, not the ones giving Ukraine a chance to defend against it. The difference is the US was the aggressor in those other scenarios while in this one they are just helping out the defender. Yes it's to help their own interests, but the Ukrainians don't care, they just want someone to help them defend their land and home and families.
Of course. They just don't have a right to drag the rest of Ukraine into Russia at the same time. On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement on the grounds of "why should I care if a country's capitalist class loses some of its economic base?"
No, but if that's what was happening we could all then be criticizing a peacetime government for acting injustice upon segments of its population, instead of advocating for an end to a war. The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to "save" a group of people isn't one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn't we be in a constant state of war everywhere? (Since there's pretty much at least one oppressed group in every country worldwide at least one other country could claim a right to "protect" them based on shared heritage or language.)
Just because Russia (might) have the military capability to do so when all these other countries might not doesn't mean they should.
I don't see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously. If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, "No, and we'll use force to stop you," and another country says, "Hey, seperatists, we'll support you," then where do you stand on all that? You're pro-seperatist while being anti-supporting seperatists? That doesn't make any sense, you could look at just about any successful seperatist movement and see that they recieved foreign backing from someone and that it was likely a crucial factor in winning, for example, French support in the American revolution. This foreign support is generally less motivated by altruism and more by the assisting nation's geopolitical goals, but it's all the same to the seperatists who need it to survive.
To me your stance is coming across as, you support the seperatists, but also they should've backed down immediately when Ukraine used force to avoid a war, but in that case it seems like you don't actually support the seperatists in practice.
They're about different things. One is an opinion about bottom-up, community activism and the principle of self-determination, and is a belief that exists independently of the material conditions and reality of global politics. France only supported the Americans in order to "get back" at England. They later regretted it when the Americans supported the French Revolution. When I say I support separatism, I am thinking specifically about how Lenin released all of the Russian Empire's colonial nations, regardless of how it might adversely impact the Soviet states' security prerogatives.
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn't go "yeah, we love what you're trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly", they went "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals." Likewise, Russia, having lost Ukraine (and the Eastern Bloc), is trying to regain its lost glory, and it just so happens that they can exploit Donbas separatism in order to do so.
My understanding of the Donbas is that it was largely populated by Russians from the Russian SFSR during the era of open borders within the Soviet States, which also makes things different than Catalans, Kurds, and Scots, for example.
Saying "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals" is still supporting them. That's my point, seperatists often rely on geopolitical rivals supporting them for ulterior motives. You can't really cleanly separate bottom-up political activism from opportunistic rivals with ulterior motives, because in practice the former will generally rely on the latter. Generally when you're fighting a civil war, you don't have the luxury of turning up your nose at offers of assistance for the sake of purity. So if your position is supporting seperatists movements except when they recieve foreign backing, you're not going to find yourself supporting many seperatists movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
If this was still like 2018, I'd be out there supporting the various brokered deals that included Russia at the table. Framing the current conflict as a civil war is inaccurate, as it lost the characteristics of a civil conflict when Russia attacked the rest of Ukraine in February 2022. What was a protracted, simmering war between a fraction of the Ukrainian army and Russian-backed Separatists on the fringes of the nation's territory, with a dynamic akin to plenty of regions around the world throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
I wouldn't say that's my position. I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms, since it means the destruction of people's livelihoods, and heritages, which of course cost many lives in the process too. People here often talk about ending the war in Ukraine as fast as possible because of the violence, so wouldn't the morally and ethically consistent viewpoint be to support what would prevent war too, not to argue for or justify foreign interventionism? No war but class war, you know?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn't have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn't become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn't then ask to join the French Empire.
As an aside, France's support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we're to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn't gonna be good for Russia long term.
Ok so what happens if a government says, "No you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?" Nations aren't generally keen on giving up territory, especially in cases where the relationship is exploitative. Renouncing force means renouncing the threat of force, which can often leave very little leverage for a seperatist movement to work with.
Personally though, I'm inclined to agree somewhat with your point that seperatism isn't always worth the conflict, and for that reason I wouldn't necessarily agree with the stance of being predisposed to support seperatist movements. Imo, it's better to take a pragmatic view, evaluating the specific conditions on a case by case basis.
I would argue that if Russia withdrew and the seperatist movements surrendered, there would still be a conflict between the Russian speaking population and the Ukrainian government. I suppose it'd be possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
I don't think it's unreasonable that the DNR and LPR would want to join Russia for legitimate security reasons at this point. If you want to label them as Russian proxies and Ukraine as a US proxy, I don't mind, but I think the reality is that while both are influenced by foreign governments, they also both represent some degree of genuine support.
I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.
I mean, I don't think there's any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I'm sure there are people who'd want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we're already talking about the reverse.
I can't think of specific examples but there's definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to "political solutions" meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)
These aren't good or something I'm arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.
Me too, that's why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.
I'm perfectly fine with a negotiated settlement. Ideally, the areas where more people want to stay in Ukraine should stay with Ukraine and the areas where more people want to join Russia should join Russia. That would minimize the amount of displacement while allowing people to live under the government of their choice. My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.
This was the biggest example that came to my mind and it's not exactly comparable but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation.
For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements "no". I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).
While I've been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.
Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).
That's kind of a fair point I think but I don't think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it's a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should've cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won't be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.
I'm inclined to agree.
They did do that. My coworkers aunt was finally granted Russian citizenship and was ecstatic. They granted citizenship to a number of refugees in the war.
Right, Ukraine was fighting corruption. Russia entered on the side of... corruption.
"Fighting corruption" is an interesting way to describe sustained artillery bombardments of civilian targets.
Fighting this corruption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
Hoo boy wait til you see what Zelenskyy was up to.
Why are you defending oligarchs?
deleted by creator
A few million dollars earned from acting is an oligarch to you?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukraine-leader-seeks-to-justify-offshore-accounts
Better keep reading and you'll find a real one:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-russia-dismisses-leaks-implicating-putin
deleted by creator
I'm not sure what that has to do with shelling cities, are you suggesting he was hiding in one of the buildings or what?
Look, the heckin' wholesome slava ukrainis didn't know where he was so they had to shell everywhere! It's like playing Battleship, except it's mostly other random innocent people that you hit
Yes, but the liberal pro-EU protestors got sidelined by literal neo-Nazis. The following President was basically handpicked by the US Ambassador. There's plenty of western media from 2015-2021 about the integration of Azov into the Ukrainian military structure, the rehabilitation of World War II collaborators, and the suppression of the Russian language. The people of the East are, in principle, just as entitled to wish to join Russia as western Ukraine is to join the EU.
Ukraine also crucified little boys in pants. The info from the same source
A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.
It's so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.
Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a "counteroffensive." Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don't need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they've lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia's demands before more lives are needlessly lost.
Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.
As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from 'The Bad Country,' they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they're facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.
Ohh won't someone think of the poor invading war criminals!
Ukrainians are dying too, including ones drafted against their will. Maybe you should fight in their place before asking them to die on your behalf.
deleted by creator
? We have tho? My country has sent like $80 billion dollars so far to the invading war criminals.
Free the Donbass
deleted by creator
So you’d want peace by Ukraine giving up its territory?
How about peace talks that involve Russia giving back all Ukrainian lands (including Crimea) and pulling all troops out.
Why stop there, how about demanding Russia provide every Ukrainian with a talking unicorn buddy?
I live in reality and when I say I want peace it means I believe in negotiating based on realistic expectations.
Shouldn't the people of Crimea get to decide whether they want to live under Kyiv's rule?
You mean the Russians that Russia settled there? Curious what you think about the Uighurs getting to break away a country from China.
Crimea was annexed with zero shots fired. Maybe Ukraine should respect the voices of the people living in eastern ukraine.
deleted by creator
Most of the people I'm talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don't believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.
By "the Uighers" I assume you're talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It's 90+% approval for China overall, I can't find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.
Get out of your bubble. The majority of the world supports Russia. It's an uncommon view in Europe/USA, but common everywhere else.
Also, being anti NATO expansion doesn't mean you support Russia. That is a reductive world view.
Regardless of how many despots find Putin's approach appealing, it remains fundamentally wrong.
Who said anything about despots? These are opinions of people, not rulers. Citizens of Africa, Asia, South America have suffered under US hegemony, so they view the Russian State different than you do.
The world isn't as simple as Russia bad, US good.
O rly? Because I thought things were simple. I, like everyone who isn't already fully on team hexbear, am an idiot. Please cite your sources.
https://www.eiu.com/n/russia-can-count-on-support-from-many-developing-countries/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/30/negative-views-of-russia-mainly-limited-to-western-liberal-democracies-poll-shows
This isn't news.
One more: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/worlddivided
Weird how they ask for sources then never respond. Almost as if they're just arguing in bad faith and trying to waste time.
It may take them sometime to digest, especially if they had a marvel movie USA good Russia/China bad worldview.
Hopefully they grow from the knowledge.
Have you even read these?
Just one example:
Nearly half (46%) globally said that the European Union, United States and Nato were doing too little to assist Ukraine, while 11% said they are doing too much
Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.
Or in other words, the majority of the world supports Russia.
As your quote shows the article you're citing from doesn't only look at peoples' views of the war in Ukraine, but shows a big divide between progressive and conservative nations. Eg. the majority in SE Asia, the Middle East and Africa doesn't care as much for Putin invading Ukraine as they do for him stomping on the gays and progressives.
Sadly, conservatives outnumber progressives globally.
American cultural conflicts are not world politics. This has nothing to do with "the gays" or progressives (meaning less term).
Cuba is against NATO expansion. If you think it's because Cuba allegedly hates gays you need to study both history and recent events before forming political opinions.
You should really read the article you cited from then. There's no need to restrict your scope to the US or Cuba, unless you are being disingenious
It holds true for every country. African countries support Russia for material reasons, same as SE Asia and the middle east.
But I'm done. You are a racist debate pervert who has no interest in the truth. I hope one day you view all citizens of the world as full people.
"Read your own sources plz" - > "racist debate pervert!" this is fantastic
Sure, for what it's worth I could concede that a global majority might approve of support for Ukraine according to this data. Looking at raw data from: https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/initiatives/the-copenhagen-democracy-summit/dpi-2023/
That figure may not be accurate however, especially because I can't see that they computed a weighted global total by population. They extrapolate to obtain each "nationally representative result" by taking into account the respondents' age, gender and education to mitigate selection bias. I have my doubts about extrapolating like that, but okay. The main problem is when you check the global total, it's just an unweighted average of all nations.
Each country has ~1000 respondents, so there isn't a proportional representation of each country based on its population - small countries (mostly imperial core, as it happens) have an outsized effect on the average.
But why post it when you think it's a shit paper
I do think the paper is flawed but not useless. I wasn't really the one who posted it though, it's the primary source for this claim in the other article.
did they fix the emoji problem yet?
FREUDIAN SLIP
Source
What a surprise, a childish dipshit.
All you're doing is insulting people. This behavior is why
is a necessity.
PPB aka juicy thread located
Emoji
deleted by creator
You sure are
At least you can admit it
Lol racist libs, amirite? Idiot.
Libs just can't help expose themselves
Lol the thing I just did but laughing it off like it's ridiculous to say haha
Why is the west not despots but the rest of the world is?
Well thankfully most of the powerful (economically and militarily) nations support Ukraine. You’re the one in a bubble.
So people in the developing world don't get an opinion because their country is poor and weak?
Tankies.
Deride us as woke next.
Lol do you people go around linking to your comments on hexbear so your 'comrades' can come upvote you? Hexbear comments are always unusually upvoted, even when it's a controversial topic or if the comment itself is braindead (most of them are).
deleted by creator
No, and you could easily investigate if you were actually earnestly asking that instead of just coping by being snarky.
Yes. It's very bad faith to pretend you don't understand how Lemmy works.
Also super cringe to make up a conspiracy theory to explain why people you disagree with have more internet points.
Best part is that I think they made a new account to post that comment
This thread is at the top of active on hexbear (after the weekly pinned threads). And we all know there’s gonna be libs here yearning for
deleted by creator
It's both funny and sad that the reddit diaspora culture you're immersed in has carried over such a tradition of pointless snark and petty posturing that you see people supporting each other's points and can't imagine anything but a sinister conspiracy to derail you, the main character.
Like for the first time in maybe your whole life you're experiencing social media without a big corporate hand on the cultural scale, and you can either learn or continue to shit your pants amusingly.
Why would anyone do that? Wokeness is rad and cool, while tankies love to do fascist apologia, which is highly unwoke
deleted by creator
"My terminally online movement is not full of fascists and useful idiots parroting fascist propaganda because of, uhm, history" Yes, tell me again about the freikorps while every day I see another hazoid being besties with Nazis, or being a fascist themselves.
deleted by creator
I don't know if you're a fascist, I'm currently not interested enough to go checking.
Because you're on Lemmy defending legacy of a pejorative identifier when confronted with the fact that the modern online tankie community has produced a number of fascist-aligned notable persons over the last years, and keeps spreading and regurgitating fascist propaganda because of the common alignment against the West.
The history is important. In this conversation, history is irrelevant. Stop making it about your honor
deleted by creator
"Please stop pointing out we're friends with fascists, it hurts our feefees. Don't you know that muh history means I'm very cool and honorable despite being an internet warrior".
You're one step removed from a nationalist. Except you're feeding your insecurity with a different flavour of a myth.
deleted by creator
You're not beating the allegations, you're treating this the same way a nationalist would. If you don't see the irrelevance of historical anecdotes here, well, I guess that explains why you're a tankie.
deleted by creator
Haz, Maupin, Dore and all their sphere are fascist. One guy literally went through being an "anti-imperialist" tankie to going to Tucker Carlson and talking about how wokeness is destroying West or something. Even in comments here I see tankies gladly buying and spreading Russian bullshit about Ukrainians being Nazis. Or how when I recently mentioned Russia making genocidal policies against trans people, a lot of people from a tankie sub began whataboutisming me about that. The fact that you totally ignored my larger point (tankie community producing fascists), which you apparently know about and "dunk all the time" on. The fact that you tried to deflect from that by bringing up 50-years-old historical anecdotes which are irrelevant to this particular context. It's in the same vein as when Israel tries to deflect from accusation of fascism and apartheid by bringing up antisemitism and Holocaust. Of course, what Israel does is much worse than being a breeding ground for online fascists, but the mechanism of deflection here is similar. Don't try to strawman me on this. No matter which honorable or victimized identity you use, this remains a deflection.
You really need to start using real words for things. You are using "tankie" to describe everything under the sun right now and I literally have no idea what you're saying anymore.
I've actually been extremely consistent with my usage of the term throughout this conversation. The people I'm talking to keep using it for everyone under the sun, that's true. From a member of a third-world communist party 50 years ago to themselves to Joseph Stalin. My focus is currently on the online English-speaking community/ies of the last 5-10 years who would fit the term
deleted by creator
Who else would we talk about in a Lemmy conversation about people on Lemmy supporting Russia? I've been telling you the Vietnamese don't matter in this context from the very beginning.
deleted by creator
You know if you've misunderstood my initial comment you can just drop the posturing and say so
deleted by creator
It all comes down to ego
EDIT: I've made myself clear what I was talking about. The context was there, you were the first one to bring up the 20th century people. I could take some responsibility as the term is vague, but too many of you went for the dunks and posturing, making up shit about what I meant on the fly. The problem that truth here is relative and if enough of you decide that is what happened, whatever context I had in mind wouldn't matter. It's easy to be cynical about the whole interaction for both of us. Also good for the ego, as being wrong hurts and we all know it. I'm off to bed, will see if you add something else here later. It wasn't nice to talk to you, bye.
deleted by creator
You're a doodoo
deleted by creator
https://jacobin.com/2023/01/soviet-union-memorials-nazi-germany-holocaust-history-revisionism
Non-sequitur, I have nothing to reply to
Literally a direct reply to the exact thing you said
Please learn reading comprehension
I am quoting you here.
This is you committing the exact act being described in that article.
That makes it a direct reply to the exact thing you said.
Comment?
Please learn reading comprehension in regards the article in question. Or to my message. You seem to have trouble understanding at least one of the two
In regards to the article in question.
Thank you. I hope you've already followed or are about to follow my advice
Son you can't play stupid and act smug at the same time. You just look like a fucking idiot.
I don't like being lied about. I assume it's you not understanding either what I wrote or the article. Or you just don't care and I'm just feeding a troll
Or you're fucking stupid and you don't see the literal one to one reflection of what you said and the article you totally did actually read.
Okay, so you're just being a troll, I got it. Come back when you decide to stop being a gaslighting piece of shit
You can whine all you want about my disrespect for you becoming more and more pronounced but you're the one digging your heels in with bad faith
I say either shut the fuck up or act like you give a shit
Okay so not letting myself being gaslit by bad faith actors is digging my heels in I got it. Fuck off troll
Gaslighting is when someone shows you your own copy and pasted words and then tells you that an article is a relevant reply to your statement.
You're a fucking baby. If you can't engage with something so basic without having a tantrum and pulling reddit debatebro cliches out of a hat then why the fuck are you still here? I told you to act like you gave a shit or shut the fuck up. Why do you refuse both?
This is literally the gaslighter tactic. The moment you call out the behavior you're framed as the unstable one. I think I've made it clear that you're either wrong about the meaning of my words or you're actively lying about them, which I think is the most probable here as you keep being a POS about all of this. If you think there is a literal one-to-one correlation between the article and my words, you could've shown it to me hours ago. You didn't. I did read the article, it's not there. You keep pushing your bullshit without elaborating, so yeah, you're a troll.
One last try before I block you and go with my day, this is not productive at all.
Gaslighting is when you make someone question their own senses. I quoted your exact words to you.
Stop draping yourself in the cloak of abuse and mental health issues just because you're a fucking lazy idiot who wants an easy way out of being criticized for your nazi propaganda talking points.
It's really fucking gross, you should be ashamed of yourself and fuck you.
Blocked
Oh no what will I do without your continued petulant intransigence and mocking of abuse victims
Thank goodness you made a dramatic pronouncement like that instead of just fucking off hours ago like I suggested. Imagine being the main character and not having a mic drop.
Oh look, calling communists fascists
Surely people who do that aren't supportive of double genocide theory, which Jewish holocaust scholars condemn as carrying water for nazism.
Every time I criticize tankies they:
Oh, which successful communists are you talking about?
Also, double genocide theory being holocaust trivialization still applies as it refers to calling the USSR fascist, if you think it is an irrelevant insuniation take it up with the Jewish holocaust scholars.
As I said to the person below, learn reading comprehension or fuck off. I don't want to engage in a conversation when I'm repeatedly being gaslit on what I said.
Which successful communists aren't you insulting by comparing to fascists, which again, carries water for fascists
It's impossible to insult successful communists, as there are none. Unless you lower your bar enough to ignore glaring issues like ethnic cleansing of "unloyal" peoples and recreation of the capitalist mode of production.
I'm not interested in the "no U" back-and-forth. If you want to defend online tankie community producing prominent fascists, then do so without deflecting. If you don't, then stop acting indignant
You're literally just carrying water for fascists, according to Jewish experts on the holocaust.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
I didn't mention Holocaust anywhere you paranoid fuck. Stop deflecting. If you link the double genocide thing once more I will assume you're just here to defend the resettlements. Which kinda proves my point.
Do you have anything to say about the prominent online fascists or fascist Russia apologists coming from the tankie community, some still publicly identifying as tankies?
You literally called some communists fascists. You're equating them with people who did the holocaust. Which is problematic.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
Fuck you you fascist piece of shit. I'm not entertaining your deflections no more.
Cope you fascist pig
I literally lost ancestors to the holocaust. Stop carrying water for fascists by equating the people who ended the holocaust to them. You're doing work to trivialize the holocaust, according to literally every prominent Jewish historian who studied the holocaust and has spoken about double genocide theory. This is literally a mainstream position outside of communist circles.
Either learn to prioritize not giving the nazis ammo over your desire to be a mini-mcCarthy or learn what the actual differences between communism and fascism are instead of relying on propaganda that benefits the nazis.
Fuck off you gaslighting fascist pig, losing ancestors to Holocaust doesn't prevent you from being a fascist POS which you proved enough to me already. I have zero respect for you as you keep lying about my words without a pause and kept deflecting criticisms of fascist behavior and ethnic cleansings by deceptively framing my position as something it is not. Which is the same egregious thing fascist supporters of Israeli apartheid are known for. Fuck off and go deport Kalmyks or whatever your favourite hobby is
I am not lying about your words. I am telling you that equating communists and fascists (which you have repeatedly done) is incorrect, and holocaust trivialization, according to mainstream liberal historians, which you could literally look up right now instead of continuing to show your own ass and be incredibly offensive to a communist organizer who lost family to the fucking holocaust.
Is double genocide theory in the room with us now? Why do you keep bringing this irrelevant shit up? How do some fucks equivocating USSR and Nazi Germany relate to the repackaged Russian fascist propaganda I see coming daily from the tankie community? How does it justify the defense of ethnic cleansing you've engaged in this conversation? A whole bunch of people sharing community with you came out of woodwork to lie about me the moment I mention the really bad fucking things I see daily among people like you. You all lie, you reframe my words into something entirely different, you keep bringing stuff from time periods completely unrelated to the fucked up shit I see in front of me. My original message had nothing to do with neither USSR nor Nazi Germany, it's you who decided to push the conversation towards "successful communists" and the DGT. I see the same fascist tactics of deflection as I'd see from Nazis or Israel apartheid supporters. "Oh, you've criticized our fascist behavior? But we've suffered greatly from Nazis, so it's you who's the real fascist actually". Your offense should be directed towards yourself internalizing fascist tactics and not me calling you out on them.
Yes, you repeatedly are equating communists with fascists which is the main rhetoric it uses to advance holocaust trivialization, you ass.
Didn't you just accuse me of gaslighting?
Lmao.
You need to open a history book specialized in how fascist systems exist and operate. Russia is literally just a belligerent bourgeois democracy. Putin is beholden to the oligarchs, a word for capitalists with an orientalist connotation. There is not the transition from primarily extracting increases of productivity from abstract surplus labor value to concrete labor value which marks fascism economically.
What "tankie community" lol? There isn't a unified one. Do you mean us, who generally oppose the war and want a negotiated peace so Ukraine stops losing the war so expensively (in blood of conscripts)?
There's no equating, I specified which things I have issues with. You've been deflecting from those things by bringing up Holocaust, which is a tactic used by fascists. Also saying that there are prominent fascists who call themselves tankies or communists is not related to Holocaust in any way. The only way you can link it is by malicious use of the aforementioned tactic.
When I bring up ethnic cleansings done by USSR and the first thing you do is deflecting by lying that I said they were equal to Holocaust, this is defense of ethnic cleansing. When called out on that, you continued to do so, so I can't write it off as you being unaware of what you were doing. The moment you called me out on the thing you thought I was doing, I corrected you. When you got called out, you just ignored it and kept doing the same thing.
Thank you for verifying you don't know shit. Trivializing fascism we go.
Generally it's a bad idea to hinge the whole question of whether a country is fascist on a single esoteric economic factor. Which part are you talking about: the slave labor? the war economy? You're a bit word salad-y there.
The one which decided to come out on me with your fascist deflections. Or the same which keep calling Ukrainians Nazis, following the same propaganda tactic used in the War on Terror. The same from which fascists like Haz, Maupin, and Hinkle sprouted and got popular in. Or the same which tried to do whataboutism when I brought up Russian genocidal policies on trans people around a month ago. Those which pretend that created via a Nazi coup DNR is actually an embattled Russian minority defending itself and not a blatant puppet-state. The one that tried to justify Russian invasion to me countless of times, the one that parroted Russian narratives on Bucha. What I'm doing here is basically describing my every second interaction with tankies to you.
Obviously there's not a single community, but there are large nodes, and even if there were none, this wouldn't mean the patterns of behavior can't be criticized.
I am very smart
Enjoy your servitude in the crumbling empire
You rang?
fuck yeah we are
Imagine being proud of a t34. Oof
T34s were part of the army that defeated nazi Germany. Cope and seethe.
deleted by creator
You named yourself after a Nazi dive bomber.
Your username is literally stuka. Also, remember when Germany had their asses destroyed by the red army? That was funny.
Removed by mod
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
deleted by creator
I'd say they're doing much better than you hoped
deleted by creator
Why do you think Ukrainians don't want to defend their country?
If you suggest they better surrender asap because Russia has a bigger army, who do you think should be next?
deleted by creator
Do you believe the Russian soldiers are volunteers?
deleted by creator
So if a bigger country conscripts their people to invade you you should checks notes take the moral high road, get overrun and surrender as soon as possible
deleted by creator
No reason?
Do you have any idea how many people Russia sacrificed to repel the Germans? Do you think the world would be better had they just followed your advice?
deleted by creator
You believe Hitler attacked the nazi's in Russia?
deleted by creator
They're literally running out of bodies dude
They'll slow their offensive to match. But every invader they can kill, every tank they destroy is one the next guys won't have to fight.
That's my point. What next guys.
Go back to your Fox News, conservative ass
Removed by mod
Awww, the alt-right asshat is sad and resorting to using ableist terms derived from misusing medical diagnosis
Removed by mod
At least I’m not an ableist conservative ass
Tankies claim to not be supporting Russia but only point out issues with Ukraine and believe every bit of info that comes out of Russia.
Hexbear never criticizes Russia except for all the times we criticize Russia https://hexbear.net/post/278334
Hexbear.net is a Russian nationalist instance... They've grown up under Putin's cencorship and state media brainwashing.
deleted by creator
By no one, I assume you mean everyone, including the Russian troll bots?
deleted by creator
It's a whole subculture. I don't know, I can think of weirder conspiracy theories with a following.
deleted by creator