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.
You changed the goalposts for what "support" means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn't what Russia needs.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned here or elsewhere that financial aid was being given to the Ukrainian government in order to keep their civil service paid. South Korea just approved some of that recently.
Whenever anyone in the West brings up "global support for Ukraine" that's what they're mostly talking about, I merely clarified that because people are operating on different definitions of what constitutes "support". When I consider "support for Ukraine" vs "support for Russia", I'm comparing money, arms, and diplomatic positions or comments made by a country's leadership. When I do so, I see:
Countries supporting Ukraine with money and/or arms
Countries that have condemned the war/invasion and nothing else, maintaining their existing relations with both Ukraine and Russia while also criticizing NATO in some cases
Iran + the DPRK, plus maybe Belarus for allowing it's territory to be used
Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists
Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line at reflexively supporting anything the United States opposes? Like, I get that the US successfully re-aligned Ukraine's foreign policy over the last decade or two, an unequivocal and blatant expansion of US influence and control, and so a successful Russian invasion would result in undoing that American victory, but I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine being in Russia's sphere of influence for socialists, beyond the fact that Russia isn't the dominant world power. Is that really it? And if so, how is it beneficial to replace one imperialist domination with another?
Doesn't it matter that Russia is arguably more of a neoliberal state in line with the domestic social, economic and political agendas of far-right parties in the US, UK, and EU, than many Western countries currently?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned here or elsewhere that financial aid was being given to the Ukrainian government in order to keep their civil service paid. South Korea just approved some of that recently.
Whenever anyone in the West brings up "global support for Ukraine" that's what they're mostly talking about, I merely clarified that because people are operating on different definitions of what constitutes "support". When I consider "support for Ukraine" vs "support for Russia", I'm comparing money, arms, and diplomatic positions or comments made by a country's leadership. When I do so, I see:
Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line at reflexively supporting anything the United States opposes? Like, I get that the US successfully re-aligned Ukraine's foreign policy over the last decade or two, an unequivocal and blatant expansion of US influence and control, and so a successful Russian invasion would result in undoing that American victory, but I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine being in Russia's sphere of influence for socialists, beyond the fact that Russia isn't the dominant world power. Is that really it? And if so, how is it beneficial to replace one imperialist domination with another?
Doesn't it matter that Russia is arguably more of a neoliberal state in line with the domestic social, economic and political agendas of far-right parties in the US, UK, and EU, than many Western countries currently?