• trot [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russian pacifists want Russia to stop invading Ukraine.

    Western "pacifists" want to send NATO tanks to Ukraine.

    They are not the same.

    Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

    But an important consideration should be whether one's actions actually contribute to Russia withdrawing sooner, or if they instead help justify further, equally self-interested NATO involvement in the war.

    Unless you are Russian, it's most likely the latter.

    There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn't matter which one of them technically started it.

    • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.

      I'm sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

      Do you have the same position regarding the Vietnam war, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or do you only support whichever side is not aligned with the US?

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Vietnam War? You mean the one where a rebel faction backed by Russia rose up against a smaller, recently established pro-Western government, and the US came to the defense of that government, because if they lost the enemy would surely keep expanding more and more across the entire region, and all the peace advocates were dismissed as supporting appeasement? That Vietnam war?

        Yes, we take a similar position on that as we do to this, do you?

        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
          ·
          1 year ago

          Vietnam was opposing a puppet government imposed by the US.

          The Ukrainians opposed a Russian puppet government in 2013.

          Do you support both Vietnam and Ukraine?

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I support both the Vietnamese fighting against the South Vietnam puppet government and the Ukranians in the DPR fighting against the current Ukrainian puppet government, yes (though my support for the latter is more critical since they're not communists)

            • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
              ·
              1 year ago

              You did not answer my question.

              Did you support the Ukrainians rebelling against their government back in 2013. Or do you only support a side if that side happens to oppose the US?

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I disagree that the previous government was a puppet government.

                My political aims go against the interests of the US, so generally groups that are aligned with my aims oppose and are opposed by the US. I don't believe in judging every conflict as a disinterested third party with no consideration of past events or present conditions. The US has a long history of installing far-right governments, has an atrocious record of human rights, and violates sovereignty left and right, and that is relevant to who I support.

                I do believe in giving critical support to just about anyone who's willing to disrupt the unipolar world order in which the US has license to act as a rogue state. I want everyone involved in starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to face a war crimes tribunal and be shot or hanged, and I support things that bring us closer to that goal. You, on the other hand, want to keep blindly trusting those same people to tell us who our enemies are. The only way to put any check on the US's rampant militarism and aggression is through a multipolar world order.

                • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I disagree that the previous government was a puppet government.

                  Of course you do, that's my point.

                  Tankies will support whichever government aligns with a power that is not the US. Even if that power is a capitalist oligarchy like Russia.

                  The US has a long history of installing far-right governments, has an atrocious record of human rights, and violates sovereignty left and right

                  They do, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

                  Specially when you take into account what Russia has done. They have a long history of erasing East European cultures (i.e. Russification), and genocide. So I do not trust them when it comes to Eastern European affairs, and neither do native people from those countries, most of support for Russia in those areas comes from Russian minorities (I wonder how they got there).

                  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Of course you do, that's my point.

                    Great argument.

                    They do, but the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

                    Of course they're not, and I don't consider them as such. They are, however, the enemy of my enemy. Ideally, once the US is dealt with, Putin can get the wall next.

                    They have a long history of erasing East European cultures (i.e. Russification), and genocide. So I do not trust them when it comes to Eastern European affairs, and neither do native people from those countries

                    The US has a much worse historical record with genociding native people, so maybe Russia should support some landback movements in the US. Afaik they never did anything to the Native Americans.

                    I'm not sure what genocide you're referring to in any case. But I'm sure you can dig up some skeletons in the closets of any two historical neighbors if you go far enough back. What's funny about your argument is that you seem to be suggesting that people thousands of miles away are better suited to govern a region, since they likely don't have a similar record.

                    (I wonder how they got there).

                    Are we just going to ignore the part where the USSR expanded Ukraine's borders to include the disputed regions?

                      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        1 year ago

                        Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.

                        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          Famines are not genocides lol. Though I suppose you could make the case that the embargo on the USSR caused a lot of excess deaths. Famines were extremely common before the USSR took power because it was a pre-industrial society, the USSR ended that. Also, the USSR is a completely different government from the Russian Federation.

                          How do you feel about the Irish Famine?

                          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            1 year ago

                            The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should've clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

                            I'll note that your own source says in the introduction:

                            While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

                            Likewise, the article on the Kazakh famine:

                            Some historians describe the famine as legally recognizable as a genocide perpetrated by the Soviet state, under the definition outlined by the United Nations; however, some argue otherwise.

                            And

                            The de-Cossackization is sometimes described as a genocide of the Cossacks, although this view is disputed, with some historians asserting that this label is an exaggeration.

                            The last one I didn't see any mention of genocide though it might be buried deeper in the article, it's pretty long.

                            • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                              ·
                              edit-2
                              1 year ago

                              The Irish Famine was a genocide, because it was intentional. I should’ve clarified I mean that famines can be genocides, but are not inherently genocidal.

                              I’ll note that your own source says in the very first line:

                              While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether the Holodomor constitutes a genocide remains in dispute

                              Here's a quote from the Irish Famine (same source: wikipedia)

                              Virtually all historians reject the claim that the British government's response to the famine constituted a genocide, their position is partially based on the fact that with regard to famine related deaths, there was a lack of intent to commit genocide.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Genocide_question

                              So you have two options:

                              1. You either accept both as a genocide

                              2. Or you basically pick-and-choose based on whichever country was responsible for the genocide.

                              My guess is that you'll take the second option.

                                • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                                  ·
                                  1 year ago

                                  Or I could… not base my views on history entirely off of Wikipedia articles?

                                  So... first you believe Wikipedia, now you don't, based on whichever articles suit your views?

                                  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                                    ·
                                    1 year ago

                                    I don't think you understand how this works. You cited Wikipedia asking me to accept it as a source. That means that you accept it as a source, and I may or may not accept it as a source. Given that Wikipedia says that your claims of genocide are disputed, you have to accept that. I don't have to accept Wikipedia as authoritative, because I never claimed it was, I'm just saying that if you accept it, then you have to accept that all your claims are disputed. That's just how citing sources works.

                      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

                        https://www.villagevoice.com/2020/11/21/in-search-of-a-soviet-holocaust/

              • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Those were violent right-wing militias, not peaceful protestors. Did you support the people rebelling against the US government on January 6th? Because that's a genuinely analogous position to supporting the Maidan coup.

                • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ukraine's parliament had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the Agreement with the EU, but Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

                  How is this in any shape or form analogous to the Jan 6th?

                  • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In both cases the rioters sought to overturn the democratic election of a president, and in both cases they did so by storming the legislature. The difference is that the Maidan coup was successful. (Perhaps because of significant US support for it?)

                        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          lmao Russia had nothing at all to do with January 6th buddy, that was all Trump

                          I wonder where Trump got his support from. 🤔

                          • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            1 year ago

                            Maybe from the fact that the bloodless US political class has delivered nothing to ordinary people for decades, and people were ready to grab onto anyone who actually seemed to offer a promise of something different? Maybe from the vast swathes of racism that still suffuse the population, which aren't readily cleansed from a country literally built on white supremacy?

                            You libs love to use "sure the US is bad too" as a throwaway line, but you clearly don't actually believe it, seeing as you can't even imagine that this country could elect Trump without being induced to do it by Evil Russians.

                          • Kuori [she/her]
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            fascists right here at home in the united states. sorry, you can't blame the scawy foreigners for the cancer in your society.

                          • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            It's absolutely wild how so many USAmericans completely lack the ability to understand that their problems are homegrown.

      • trot [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I literally said that

        Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

        Are you aware that it's possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

        You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it's a neat little trick called "opposing the position of your own government".

        • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

          I am.

          But do you believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia without NATO's weapon supply?

          • Sphere [he/him, they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He most likely doesn't believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia with NATO's weapon supply, and for good reason, given how clearly this is demonstrated by the utter failure of the vaunted counter-offensive. The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).

            • InappropriateEmote [comrade/them, undecided]
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter). [emphasis mine]

              They never admit it, but the fact that Russian deaths will continue is one of if not the main reason these NATO dronies are fine with sacrificing the lives of all those Ukrainians they pretend to care about. Spoiler warning: they don't actually care about Ukrainians. But they'll still couch it in terms as if they're "supporting Ukraine." Such "Ukraine supporters" are either completely, pathetically fooled by obvious NATO propaganda or they are just bloodthirsty bigots (or both, which is most often the case).

            • teichflamme@lemm.ee
              ·
              1 year ago

              The mere fact that they are in the act of a counter offensive after Russia tried to blitz then shows that it's not even close to what you're describing.

              Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

              • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Russia tried to blitz

                The mere fact that you believe this shows how steeped in western propaganda you are

                At no point was Russia's strategy a blitz, this is a lie meant to equate Russia with nazi Germany and Pitin With Hitler even though it's still ukkkraine celebrating Bandara as a national hero

                No Russia's gameplan from the start has been what it has been for almost 100 years, Soviet tactics not that that coked up nazi blitzkreig bullshit

                The attack on Kiev was likely a feint

                Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

                The cope levels are off the charts

                • teichflamme@lemm.ee
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah their Blitz was only a fake and their strategy is lose like they do right now.

                  Cope lmao

                  • CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There is nothing funny about the situation.

                    Ukraine is enacting mass conscription now, is including their medical staff, is trying to make students leave their studies to join up, has expanded conscription to 16 year olds and grandads, and is actively trying to draw in EU/NATO countries in the frey risking all out war (Romania is the latest one).

                    Shit's absolutely fucked. We are talking hundreds of thousands of casualties, an entire generation of Ukrainian either maimed, dead, or gone from Ukraine out right,mass sweeping liberalization reforms in an already poor as fuck country destroying the few labour rights that existed before the war. Members of pacifist organizations are being put on trial. And that's the state that you libs are defending?

                    The war is not going well.

                    And to be clear, neither is it for Russia. Principled communists and anti-war people are being arrested too, and the initial partial mobilization brought people to th front who would rather have not. There is similar repression, and economic hardship to the common people. There also was mass emigration (particularly to Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, and others).

                    What is it you want really?

                    Have more common people die for nothing? Escalate things to "deal with Russia" which means inherently an overt NATO/Russia war (which it seems barring the Baltic members, no one wants) inevitably leading to all out nuclear war?

                    Are you mad?? This isn't a sport's game. Be serious. You are deeply propagandized and itts leading you to deeply irrational positions.

                    • Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      Back in '41, the nazis had the Russians on the back foot. Killing them by the millions. Did the Russians give up their country? Did they complain they had to conscript students?

                      Fuck no

                      They conscripted basically everybody. They pleaded the US for weapons and got them so they could make their sacrifice count.

                      They turned the tide, freed their country and beat the invaders back to the point their leader chose to off himself rather than face their wrath.

                      Now you're saying the Ukrainians should surrender because none of it matters??

              • CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The famed counter offensive that western media has now described as incapable because of "ukrainians are too soviet brained" (the racism really did jump out lately), due to it absolutely failing to acheive its stated objectives, and leading to a situation far more reminsicent to WW1 murderous slog, and probably would have been even worse had Ukraine actually applied to a T the nonsense the US and more broadly NATO was telling them to do?

                Brother it's been months and we are talking few kms of wins, it's longer than the already absolutely ridiculous Russian assault on Bakhmut, for far less.

                It's time to end this shit. A diplomatic resolution is crucial, and in terms of the POV of working class people in the west, we must stop the endless billions sent to maintain a steady flow of ukraiian and russian soldiers to the meat grinder, particularly given our own issues.

          • trot [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, just as it would be unable to resist NATO in being turned into a far-right paramilitary-led banana republic if Russia were to suddenly withdraw without any decrease in NATO involvement.

            But the beauty of the neat little trick above is that if the working classes of both sides correctly oppose their respective ruling classes' interests, we can end up with a scenario where both sides lose - objectively the best outcome for the Ukrainian people, as well as everyone else.

            The Russian anti-war activists are clearly holding up their end of the bargain. Why are you not holding up yours?

            • CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly this.

              Revolutionary defeatism is the name of the word. Those who should be concerned with Russian imperialism must be russian working class people.

              We in the west have to fight against our own imperalists. It's very simple and in the end very logical.

            • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Russian anti-war activists are clearly holding up their end of the bargain. Why are you not holding up yours?

              Ah! To be young and naive enough to believe that the anti-war activists in Russia have any leverage. They will all end up in Siberia or jumping out of a window.

              Any regime change in Russia will come from the oligarchs, and the Russian working class will still be in a bad position (if not worse).

              • trot [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They did quite well in WW1.

                Speaking of that, was the Entente was completely justified in sending millions to die in the war? After all, previously you said:

                I'm sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

                Not even one, but two smaller countries! Think of little Belgium and Serbia!

              • Kuori [she/her]
                ·
                1 year ago

                To be young and naive enough to believe that the anti-war activists in Russia have any leverage

                funny how shitlibs like you will gladly say stuff like this while in the very same breath talking about how russians are all evil orcs for genociding the smol bean ukranians and they need to be wiped out

                also the "oh i am so worldly and wise" liberal condescension act is beyond tired. if you're so old and venerable then just fucking die already, ghoul.

                • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  also the “oh i am so worldly and wise” liberal condescension act is beyond tired. if you’re so old and venerable then just fucking die already, ghoul.

                  😘

                  • Kuori [she/her]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    as always, liberals care about nothing but being smug

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The second you call Russia's actions imperialist you just broadcast that you're someone who just uses words for their impact and not their meaning and you should be completely disregarded in any conversation on the topic

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          TIL invading other countries and annexing their territories does not qualify as imperialism.

          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It can involve that. But you're using imperialism to "accuse them of what you're doing before they can" by flattening all history and context away.

            Russia is defending itself from encirclement. Acting like you're against imperialism rings hollow when you only apply it to an act of resistance to your empire expanding.

            • Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Encirclement by what? Countries that don't like to suck off Russia anymore?

              Maybe Russia should act less like an authoritarian mafia state and then its neighbours wouln't turn away from it. Food for thought

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mind palace history. Ukraine turned away from Russia when the west sponsored a coup against the legitimately elected government and the regime they were replaced with was pro-west.