[a city devasted by war, with smoke coming from ruined building, in which dead corpses are lying in pools of blood, is below the following text]
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE KILLING EACH OTHER IN AN ENDLESS WAR WHILE THE POOR GET POORER AND THE RICH GET RICHER
[a smug character points at the devastated city, while saying]
If you do not blindly and fully support this, then you are an evil person who wants others to die
Oh you thought this was about Iran?
This is about Ukraine and how people talk about it on Lemmy (and Reddit).
I don’t shy away from pointing out hypocrisy in controversial settings.
Have a nice day :)
I don’t find that there is hypocrisy on this. In all recent cases, I’m firmly against the aggressor.
And so on. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but most of the war going on today is NOT about defense.
Sure, I agree, then let’s actually militarily defend Ukraine / Palestine / Venezuela / Iran / Lebanon.
Oh wait, it was all posturing and nobody’s willing to actually do that.
Now let’s find actually realistic solutions to those conflicts that aren’t 1 000 000 more dead proles.
No you can’t just expect people to base policy on something as dumb as material reality. It’s all about the total, inviolable abstract moral purity I can project from the safety of my comfy couch by having the only virtuous, ethical opinion: regardless of whether they want to or not, all Ukrainians should be sent off to fight the Russians until the last man or total victory. Everything else would just encourage further aggression.
Peace through strength - oh wait that’s the evil American line, we are better than thatBecause arming people who hate you with heavy weapons is such a good idea. Why don’t we ask Prigozhin how that worked…
The EU is willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian 🫡
Ukraine has two options.
Get killer or raped, or both by putin’s imerialistic regime, or fight for their country.
So saying that EU somehow behind dead Ukrainians, it’s like saying that woman is responsible for rape because she should not fight back and just agree to aggression.
It’s posturing because the alternative is more French proles dead. You complain about proles dying yet are mad for Macron not racing to get French proles killed.
How about not arming Israel, not financing Russia through fossil fuels, not giving tax cuts to US megacorps while they fuck around the world, actially applying financial pressure on bad actors and organizing boycotts etc.
I was asking the question rhetorically, to make a point. There’s other ways to wage a war. We’re not even trying (or worse in the case of Palestine we’re actively harming them).
Did you stop using fossil fuels?
I don’t directly consume any myself, I’m not the correct person to try this gotcha on.
Although even if I wanted to, I don’t get to know or control which country the fossil fuels I’d use are imported from. These are things that are handled at state level. I’m a full time activist trying to get politicians who would deal with that elected (and trying to get the state to change its stance on Israel), my words are not hollow.
Yes, those would be good policies to adopt. No dissent there.
Fyi the Israel vs Palestine thing has been back and forth for decades. Each generation only knowing of the previous attacks during their childhood. An eye for an eye has left everyone blind.
It has been going on for decades, but never “back and forth.” Israel has always been the clear and undisputable aggressor; some Palestinian factions (and in earlier stages mobs) have some blood on their hands, but that was always misguided self-defense or misguided retaliation, never outright aggression.
Well, that’s not really true; the people who support the Russian invasion of Ukraine are in the minority on lemmy and reddit
I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about the only tolerated stance being “send more money and weapons to Ukraine” with no end to the conflict in sight. How many more years and millions of casualties do we have to wait to actually do something to end this?
It’s particularly annoying in french communities, since my govt waited and looked on for weeks at the start of the war, refused to intervene while Macron was having (useless) phone calls with Putin, and now we’re meant to act all tough and pretend we have been the biggest Ukrainian supporters since day one, no slander of the glorious french nation will be tolerated!
Screw this bs, either we have a plan to intervene at some point to kick Russia’s ass and end this war (which we clearly don’t), either the only moral position is to ask for an end to this through peace negotiations. Enough dead proles while the bourgeoisie feasts.
Russia is a nuclear power; you can’t wage open war against them, because who knows how they might react if cornered. I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust the fascists running Russia at all. Negotiations are the only way forward, but right now it’s Putin himself who doesn’t want to negotiate; all attempts to organize a ceasefire have fallen through because of Russia. Arming the working class so they can defend themselves, as happened with the Italian and French partisans when they had to drive out the fascist, seems to me the most sensible thing to do.
Then we agree that there is no possible military intervention.
Negotiations are not friendly talks hosted by Trump, they’re attempts at ball twisting hosted by parties that actually want peace. So far all I’ve seen has been way too friendly, obviously Putin will just say “ok give me everything” and walk out if he has nothing to lose.
I don’t think more dead proles is a healthy endgame.
Putin has refused to strike deals even with European leaders; he hasn’t just been taking Trump for a ride. If we stopped supplying weapons to the Ukrainians, they would be conquered in no time, but that would be an occupation, not peace.
To negotiate, you must first prevent Russia from doing whatever it wants in Ukraine; otherwise, the only valid agreement will be Ukraine’s annexation by Russia.
My country is the third biggest purchaser of Russian fossil fuels, spending more on it than on helping Ukraine, while Macron is posturing as the one true ally of Ukraine.
I’m not so sure governments are interested in preventing Russia from doing whatever it wants. Capital makes the decisions.
We already surrendered to Putin when we let the war happen in the first place and didn’t cut off Russia financially afterwards. It’s been four years of pretending we haven’t, how many more to go? How many millions more casualties are acceptable until we actually do something one way or the other? If waiting for Russia to Vietnam itself is the plan, put an “acceptable” number of years and of casualties on it.
In what sense are we letting Putin do whatever he wants? It was supposed to be a three-day war, but they’ve been stuck in Donbas for four years. I don’t know how much longer this will go on, but as long as there are Ukrainians resisting the invasion of a fascist state, I think it’s right to support their fight
I mean, the EU is still announcing new sanction packages (they’re on their 17th package so far), which makes it seem like a lot is being done, but on the other hand why have all these sanctions not been implemented from the start? I don’t hear of the EU holding back weapons anymore, but it took literal years to get to this stage. And let’s not get into how reliant Europe still is on Russia gas after four years despite renewable energy being right there, or how the EU keeps supporting (or at least condoning) US imperialism that directly compromises Ukrainian defense, as is the case in Iran, or how Hungary is allowed to hold up billions in aid to Ukraine. After four years of this the EU is still pulling punches, and there’s very little indication it ever intends to stop doing so. The EU’s idea of supporting Ukraine is supporting Ukraine to the extent that it doesn’t compromise the bourgeois status quo (edit: recent example). Either go all in and stop the Russian invasion or force a peaceful settlement/capitulation without throwing Ukrainian and Russian lives into the blender.
It should’ve been a three-day war in Ukraine’s favor, is my point. Spending a decade grinding Russia and Ukraine to dust against each other is the worst of both worlds.
Correct!
And what do we call this war then?
It’s… ?
A proxy war!
Between which parties? Between Russia and the North Atlantic countries led by the US.
And who is the proxy for the North Atlantic? Ukraine. And who is the proxy for Russia? There is none.
So Russia invaded a North Atlantic proxy with it’s own citizens. Why would it do this?
Correct. So when Russia says that they attacked Ukraine because the North Atlantic countries, led by the US, was using Ukraine as a proxy against Russia, do you acknowledge this to be true or do you believe that no such thing was happening and it’s just a cover story for 1 man to act out his megomaniacal fantasies against no real threat?
Because of Euro Maidan. Ukraine used to be Russia’s puppet, but, and I say as someone who’s actually been there, unlike most people who spew bullshit on Lemmy, they were tired of being poor and victim to corruption, and as such they wanted to move towards the ideal of prosperity and legality they saw in the EU. Was there some manipulation from western (CIA) intelligence? Probably, but that shit doesn’t take where the soil isn’t fertile, and that is the fault of Russia, they should have taken better care of their ally.
Russia couldn’t stand losing what they saw as their vassal, so they first took Crimea for the port there, and then started messing in Donbas. Then they thought “what the hell, these guys’ armed forces are nothing compared to ours, let’s just go for it!” and made the same stupid mistake most imperialists make, the same mistake the US seems poised to commit with Iran.
As if he were the first fascist to fabricate false claims in order to invade another country.
And in any case, whatever Putin’s claims may have been, nothing justifies an armed incursion into another country without a UN mandate, nor war crimes, nor the continued targeting of civilian infrastructure and the population.
Again, on the one hand, this thread correctly states “you can’t go and directly attack Russia, because it’s a nuclear power. You need a proxy”. And on the other hand when Putin says Ukraine was acting as the North Atlantic proxy and was a material threat to Russian national security you say “he’s just making shit up because he’s a fascist”.
Never does it occur to you that a fascist dictator motivated by fascism would not actually spend 3 years making zero progress when they have the 3rd largest military in the world. Never does it occur to you that Russia might have legitimate national security interests. Never does it occur to you that there is absolutely zero evidence in the intelligence analysis of all of the 5 Eyes that indicate Russia has been planning or intending or preparing to actually attack Europe and expand into an empire.
No. You just think that whoever fires the first shot is the bad guy and that’s the end of your ability and willingness to think.
Bull fucking shit.
Ukraine was no more a threat to Russian national security than Iran was a threat to US national security. Not at all.
So, again, we have on the one hand people saying “you can’t attack Russia directly because it’s got nukes, you have to use a proxy” and then when Russia says “Ukraine is the North Atlantic proxy” suddenly there’s no memory of the previous understanding and it’s actually a war solely between Russia and Ukraine and Ukraine couldn’t possibly be a threat.
Keep working the two points together. In order to attack Russia, the West needs a proxy. Russia said Ukraine was a threat. Ukraine wasn’t a threat, it’s just Russia being crazy. We have to stop Russia, but we can’t attack it directly, we need a proxy.
Around and around we go until, hopefully, you realize what it means for Ukraine to be a proxy. It would mean that the US was building logistics in the country. It would mean that the US was preparing to US Ukrainian soldiers to fight Russia. It would mean establishing lethal force under the guidance of the West within Ukrainian territory.
And what do we see? Joint Ukraine/NATO exercises beginning in the late fall of 2013. Increasing support for NATO among the right wing of Ukraine. An ascendant right wing in Ukraine spurred on by right wingers in the US. More joint NATO/Ukraine exercises, increasing in frequency, in scope, in lethality. Exercises simulating the invasion of Kaliningrad. Exercises for the interoperability of long-range missiles that would be used to attack deep into Russian territory.
Ukraine was never a threat to Russia, I agree. Ukraine was always a proxy of the West and the West was the threat to Russia. The West, using Ukraine as a proxy, was the threat, and Russia could not field a proxy in this situation, like they had when they were part of the USSR, partly because they are nowhere near as strong as the USSR and partly because this proxy is on their border and not 2 or 3 borders away. Russia had to fight this proxy war itself, directly, with its own people.
But you’ll keep turning round to “but Russia is the aggressor, they invaded, Ukraine wasn’t a threat” and I’ll bringing you to the top of the cycle: you can’t attack Russia directly because it has nukes, you have to use a proxy. Ukraine is that proxy. Russia claimed Ukraine is a proxy of the West and that this was dangerous for its national security, so it invaded. And you want to stop Russia, but you can’t attack them directly, because they have nukes, so you need a proxy. Ukraine is that proxy. And Russia said Ukraine is a proxy and therefore its a threat.
Ad nauseam. I’m so tired of this thought termination, this cognitive dissonance riding on Russophobia disguised as holy righteousness disguised as a moral high ground.
deleted by creator