• in 5 years, after like 5% of the shady shit done for american empire in this theater comes to light from some wikileak, every lib weasel will be claiming they didn’t support this proxy war and they were lied to. but they will be viciously calling for some “multi-lateral” (aka US, UK, EU) blood-letting police action in west africa to liberate the uranium mines.

    • Deadend [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “In culture war crap, we tend to align! Yeah it’s for different reasons! I’m only for or against something because the people I hate decided it’s a new front!”

      I swear they just do Ukraine support out of a culture war thing because 2016 elections, Russia and Trump.

      • The_Walkening [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Abandoning the idea that Russia buying a relatively miniscule amount of ads on social media/running bot farms swayed the 2016 election would mean that liberals would have to confront the idea that Trump won in 2016 b/c the country is actually more racist than they thought it was.

        • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’d have to blame the electoral college more than anything. Clinton received 3 million more votes and still lost. Liberals are servants to rules and procedures even to their own detriment.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      … because this time the US is backing Ukraine against the aggressor, whereas in 2004 it was the aggressor?

      • blight [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hmm I wonder if anything interesting happened in Ukraine in for example 2014. Nothing in particular comes to mind.

      • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia is the aggressor in this war, and it’s bad that they invaded.

        Russia invaded Ukraine in response to continued US policy of bringing countries near Russia’s borders into NATO, a military treaty organization that Russia had tried to join but was barred from. Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.

        The Ukrainians are the victims in a proxy war between two much larger powers. For the average Ukrainian, sooner the war is over, the better. Somehow repelling the invasion would be ideal, but every day of fighting destroys lives and homes.

        US policy in response to the invasion is to send military hardware to Ukraine, enriching its arms manufacturers and prolonging the conflict. They make the Ukrainian government pay for this by forcing the privatization of their government assets at bargain prices (note how this website exists and is fully translated to English). The actual fighting is still done by Ukrainians, who die for this.

        • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.

          It’s a semantic point, but I think it’s a stretch to call Russia the aggressor. Especially so if you remember the intensified bombings of civilian areas in eastern Ukraine, which really appeared like an attempt to provoke a Russian intervention.

      • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        so when Victoria Nuland picked Ukraine’s new government after instigating a coup and they killed ~16,000 civilians people in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 those were friendly, non-aggressive artillery shells?

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’re saying that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine first, before the separatist-controlled areas were shelled?

            • aleph@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, so you’re saying that Russia illegally annexing Crimea in 2014 wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine?

              • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can always tell who the most ignorant libs are when they bring up Crimea lmao

                Crimea is not Ukrainian, it has always been a distinct cultural ethnic region and 97% of Crimeans voting for independence from Kiev should give you pause before you breathlessly insist they should remain beholden to a bunch of nazi banderites

                • aleph@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Crimeans wanting independence means they wanted to become part of the Russian empire again?

  • RandallFlagg@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hope I don’t get castrated for this by everyone here but I’m genuinely curious so I’m going to ask. For coxtext, I’m a dirty commie retard hippie dick suckin left wing lib (not a meme, I am literally a Liberal Democrat). Now that that’s out of the way, I’d like to ask someone who disagrees with me why they think that supporting Ukraine is a bad move? The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets. Sure it’s costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it. Why is this a bad thing? Should I not care if Russia gets more powerful than it already is? Am I retarded?

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I want you to look at the words “supporting Ukraine” then look at the rest of the paragraph you said after it. Especially the “why is this a bad thing?” part. Compare that question to the rest of what you just said. Really consider the words you typed.

      Now tell me if that actually sounds like you “support Ukraine” at all, or if you’ve just fallen for the same Jingoistic propaganda the US uses to justify all its wars and foreign intervention. Dead Ukrainians are not supported Ukranians. If you actually support Ukraine, you should push for peace, not more weapons to be sold to their government.

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Russia invaded their country with a military with the intent of taking land. What would peace look like?

        • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Peace looks like guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality by taking NATO membership off the table and likely ceding the DPR and LPR to the Russian federation at this point.

          At this point if Ukraine gained back the DPR it would almost certainly result in an ethnic cleansing.

          • exohuman@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So Russia gets to attack a sovereign nation and demand their land and peace looks like just giving it to them along with making sure the country they attacked is open to future attacks? How is that in any way a justified peace solution? What prevents Russia from doing it again?

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          How far do you want to go? Absolute peace would be the end of the nation-state and the use of violence to uphold class society. That’s an useless idea for this, though. Maybe a more useful goal for peace is stopping the encirclement, sanctioning, and blockading of all countries. Or not conducting coups to install puppet governments right next to geopolitical enemies. Or at the very least accepting diplomatic solutions to a war when they arise instead of slipping your proxy another check and sending a couple thousand more people to get killed.

          In short, we’re a long way out from peace, but NATO’s actions have arguably put the world in more peril and violence than even Russia’s. Even if that weren’t the case, unless you’re Russian yourself, you probably have a lot more you can do to pressure the NATO countries to stop fighting to the last Ukrainian, rather than somehow pray Putin into surrendering.

          • exohuman@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here? The war would be over in a flash of Putin simply decided to stop attacking.

            • ChapoKrautHaus [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here?

              Why do all these other countries always have to bow to these maximalist US demands? Can you name one example over the past 50 years where any country chose to do so and it made things better for them and tgeir neighbors, not just the US?

              You’re just parroting imperial talking points dude.

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How does Russia get weaker? Their trade with the rest of BRICS has been skyrocketing, their technology is actually getting developed for once, and the country is more unified than ever. All this war has done is decouple the Russian economy from the European one, which, sure, isn’t ideal, but that’s already happened.

      Now? The EU is more dependent on the US, and Russia is more dependent on China/India rather than the EU. Globalization is backsliding, and that’s dangerous because globalization is what kept the peace after the Cold War.

      • Tire@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia is weaker because the ruble is tanking, there aren’t developing better technology because we won’t give them the tools to do so, they are using up their military equipment faster than they can replace it and they are literally losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The way I see it, the longer this war goes on, the weaker Russia gets.

      We support the concept of multipolarity. We believe that that the US/NATO being the sole, dominant world hegemon is a bad thing. One big reason why we think that is because developing countries have suffered greatly under the neocolonialist policies of the World Bank and IMF, but they’ve been forced to accept whatever deal they’re offered in order to have the market access needed to survive. In a multipolar world, these countries would have more options, and would have more ability to play major powers against each other.

      We also oppose capitalism. Both the US and Russia are capitalist countries, so we oppose both of them, but we consider the US to be the higher priority, because it is more powerful. We do not believe that the interests advanced by the US government and bourgeoisie are consistent with the interests of the American people.

      Sure it’s costing the US (and other countries) a lot of money and resources but we are essentially weakining a not-so-friendly country of ours without having to send our own troops to fight it.

      The lives of Americans are not worth more than the lives of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter. We want a swift end to the war, because, uhh, we value human life. Ukraine has been completely unwilling to negotiate or consider any territorial concessions, but realistically that’s likely to happen whether we keep throwing people into a meat grinder for the next 20 years or not.

      • RandallFlagg@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, you believe that Ukraine should just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want?

        Also, forgive me because I think I’m misunderstanding the theme of this instance. Isn’t this an instance for right-wing, conservative, Republican discussions, or is it something else?

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, you believe that Ukraine should just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want?

          The situation is more complex than you’ll get from the media. Separatists in Donbas, an area with cultural ties to Russia, rose up after the old government was overthrown and the new government banned political parties and shut them out of the political process, and Ukraine signed a ceasefire which it then broke by shelling civilian targets. Even if Russia withdrew, it’s not clear that the fighting would cease.

          In any case, Ukraine has been refusing to consider any concessions at all, which is just unrealistic at this point. They’ll either cede territory now or they’ll cede it in 5 years with a lot more dead bodies.

          Also, forgive me because I think I’m misunderstanding the theme of this instance. Isn’t this an instance for right-wing, conservative, Republican discussions, or is it something else?

          Lol no we’re like actual communists here trans-hammer-sickle