Eh. It's the metaphor. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the argument about what Ukraine does or doesn't do on its own soil - or who it invites over to play - being somehow justification for invasion is hypocritical tripe. Russia's been invading other sovereign states, and stockpiles weapons in its vassel states; it's an "existential threat" to every one of its neighbors, except the strong ones like China.
The arguments Putin used for invasion about Ukraine abusing its citizens were better, except for being lies. They should have stuck with that one, except they had no evidence and nobody believed it. It still made a better story and was less hypocritical.
Also, behaving like a communist with your country when your neighbor is an imperialist dictatorship is only a recipe for becoming a member of an imperialist dictatorship.
Firstly, I'm not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of 'hypocrisy' is very clear.
Secondly, you're introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.
If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.
Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.
Ok, so, in all seriousness, thanks for making the attempt at a rational and detailed response.
However, and I say this in all honestly, I have got to start paying better attention to the homeserver of the people I'm responding to. While I appreciate the time you put into your response, I've found that my mood is greatly improved when I don't engage the hexabear swarm.
So, I apologize that you took that time and I'm just going to blow it off. My bad for not looking at the usernames more closely.
Eh. It's the metaphor. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the argument about what Ukraine does or doesn't do on its own soil - or who it invites over to play - being somehow justification for invasion is hypocritical tripe. Russia's been invading other sovereign states, and stockpiles weapons in its vassel states; it's an "existential threat" to every one of its neighbors, except the strong ones like China.
The arguments Putin used for invasion about Ukraine abusing its citizens were better, except for being lies. They should have stuck with that one, except they had no evidence and nobody believed it. It still made a better story and was less hypocritical.
Also, behaving like a communist with your country when your neighbor is an imperialist dictatorship is only a recipe for becoming a member of an imperialist dictatorship.
Firstly, I'm not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of 'hypocrisy' is very clear.
Secondly, you're introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.
If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.
Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.
Ok, so, in all seriousness, thanks for making the attempt at a rational and detailed response.
However, and I say this in all honestly, I have got to start paying better attention to the homeserver of the people I'm responding to. While I appreciate the time you put into your response, I've found that my mood is greatly improved when I don't engage the hexabear swarm.
So, I apologize that you took that time and I'm just going to blow it off. My bad for not looking at the usernames more closely.