- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27603744
You must log in or register to comment.
Sad thing is that Ukraine wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much support if it looked like they had no chance of winning, or at least resisting.
I think the diplomatic logic is what’s the point in supporting a loser - your support doesn’t change anything and when they lose you’re on the winners shit list. If you support a winner then you may have a beneficial relationship in the future.
❌️ “Violence is morally bad”
❌️ “Violence is morally good”
✅️ “Morality isn’t real and violence simply Is.”
Doesn’t really work like that. Russians are not less white than Ukrainians but their ultranationalist ideas are not nearly as supported in the West.
(Not saying Russian ultranationalism is better in any regard)
Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is “Yes”
just gonna post the same comment I made last time this was posted:
the lemmyworlds and their orbiters are gonna be upset about this one
Can’t forget the sjw users
Ukraine was invaded, and Palestine was invaded so yeah both has the right to defend themselves
Why too simplistic:
Palestine got invaded, ethnically cleaned and massively murdered for decades.
Ukraine was cultural a divided country where West and Russia alike used one band or the other to rein power on the entire country. However in 2014 the West overstep the pro-West, pro-Russia alternation with a Coup. Immediately 1/3 of the country got itself completely disfranchised (no vote, no representation, no even could speak its language) and a civil war ensured and then even that 1/3 got without no pensions or services. The sad thing is that the coup was not even needed since Viktor Yanukovych was going to be voted out in just 11 months, but Washington was not having it and needed its coup to put the alternation to an end and be able to make its long-wished constitutional changes to Ukraine . The rest is history.
Russia is not saint here, not at all, but Russia did get invaded and massacred multiple times by the West and every single time through Ukraine… I think if Moscow have a bit if concern it is perfectly warranted. Ukraine should have done what Finland did in 1940s-2010s, side with the West but full warranties to Russia of being fully Neutral and away from NATO.
When Putin keep talking about how Ukraine is a artificial state and keep claiming that Ukrainians are just Russian by mentioning Kyivan Rus , I can’t accept his claim that he is invading Ukraine for security reasons. Kyivan Rus was built in the 9th centuries, the ancestors of modern Ukrainians were distinct, indigenous tribes who had already built thriving settlements and founded the city of Kyiv by the 5th century.
Not a Putin fan, but that speech is taken out of context. He was making the point their history is very interlinked, and that it is hard to argue (Northern Ireland is indeniable Ireland, but its history is very related to UK so a compromise was made to maintain peace, can you imagine if Catholics forbid Protestants to vote there?) . Funny enough, most of Ukraine land was acquired/given to Ukraine while it was under some sort of Moscow’s dominance. The original Ukraine was just a territorial fraction of what it is today. Ukraine should
Again, in the ideal world, Ukraine should have full autonomy to decide its future, but the Washington and Moscow alike did not like that. I am Ukrainian, would work for a neutrality formula. US does the same with Cuba and Venezuela and US has 0% chances of being invaded by Chine through any of those 2 countries.
What I do notice is the irrational hatred of thinking the other as sub-human… I saw that behavior far, far more in Ukrainians than I did with Russians (at least till 2024).
I watched the whole interview with Tucker , I i don’t think it is out to context . I see no other interpretation to saying a country or state is artificial same to how israel call the west bank as Judea and Samaria and claim that Palestinians do not exists to justify what they do
Removed by mod
Did you open a history book in your life? Violence is always the answer
You can identify the liberals in this thread because they dislike this, but can’t provide a single credible argument against it.
genuine, where do .mls find antipalestenians in lemmy? I have never seen a single one here outside of blatant trolls whenever someone posts a meme like this
Tbf i feel like in the west now most people are anti israel and most people see palestinians as victims, but they often just blame hamas or think that violence isnt the answer. A lot of anti israeli people right now at least from my experience are just purely anti semetic and buy into the anti semetic tropes like how they control everything. Its very rare to find someone in my case who is genuinely anti israel, supports resistance agaisnt israel, doesnt think that israel controls usa or that jews control the world. The only people ive met that are genuinely pro palestinian are either communists who somewhat support the resistance or socialists who dont support violence and think that peaceful protests will resolve this…
There’s a lot of them, but mostly it’s the same troll users who only spit hasbara. Unfortunately they’re also mods on a few large news comms (cough lemmy.world) and feddit instances
Plenty of “pro-palestinians” around who condemn hamas and the rest of the resistance groups or call them terrorists etc.
Not a tanki but most people here reject Palestinian right to defend themselves or defend the Zionist ideology or bring neutral towards it
Where? Of all places, lemmy certainly doesn’t have folks defending zionists and even in western society at large you have public sentiment against Zionism (or at the very least, the west helping fund it)
Few days ago I debated one , now he is banned so his comment was removed but he was arguing that Zionism was not genocidal by nature despite citing herzl
https://lemmy.world/post/50712518/25318148
also this https://lemmy.world/post/8608689/5512066
Oh this also applies when pointing out Ukrainian attacks on world food supplies!
They did what
https://quokk.au/comment/5587173
Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter and most of those exports are shipped via its Black Sea ports like Novorossiysk. Russia’s main grain lobby group warned last month that Ukrainian drone attacks could shut down grain exports via the Black Sea in the near future, pushing up prices and causing hunger in Africa and the Middle East.
Ukraine is also a significant wheat exporter and invading it in a war of aggression didn’t really help with that tbh:
- https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-ukraine-and-global-food-security-impacts-four-years-later
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01915-5
Remember the wheat shortage in Northern Africa that almost turned into a famine in 2022… yeah. Maybe we should blame the side that started the war more than the side that is defending against an aggressor, even if the latter uses some shady tactics, like targeting non-military targets. It’s not like the other side were above that.
Ukraine is also a significant wheat exporter and invading it in a war of aggression
You seem to be confused - Ukraine is the one on the side of NATO in these conflicts (including Syria).
Also, what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders, especially after doing a coup against a neighbouring state?
Alright, here goes the sarcasm. I must’ve forgot the NATO invasion of Crimea in 2014. Sorry 'bout that. Wasn’t there this whole story of NATO stripping the voting rights of Crimean folks who wanted to join Russia just before the impromptu post-hoc referendum to justify that invasion? I must’ve also forgot about the NATO invasion of Georgia in 2008, darn! But I’m pretty sure I remember the invasion of Donbas and Luhansk in 2022 quite right.
As for your second argument:
what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders
Great question! Now do the same for the Baltics or Sweden. You’ll be surprised how nervous smaller countries get when one of the strongest armies in the world regularly executes larger and larger maneuvers at their borders and in their airspace. They might even think about joining a defensive military alliance. If Russia doesn’t want that, then it was not the brightest move to double down and invade Ukraine.
defensive military alliance
Yeah really defensive, the best defense is the attack.
I must’ve forgot the NATO invasion of Crimea in 2014
Not sure what you are even trying to imply here, considering that Russia’s actions in Crimea (a part of Ukraine that tried to secede from Ukraine before, and the population of which overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, according to studies conducted by NATO) came after and as a response to NATO’s aggression (including NATO doing a coup against the Ukrainian government - which you are completely fine with).
If you were trying to claim that the invaders of Iraq (at least twice), Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Palestine, and many other places are not the most prolific invaders in the world, then you were just being extremely silly.
Wasn’t there this whole story of NATO stripping the voting rights of Crimean folks who wanted to join Russia just before the impromptu post-hoc referendum to justify that invasion?
Again, not sure what you are trying to imply, considering that the population of Crimea was very anti-NATO and did try to secede from Ukraine as early as 1990s, and NATO’s studies also concluded that the population of Crimea wanted to join Russia.
But you don’t think that Crimea deserves self-determination, do you?I must’ve also forgot about the NATO invasion of Georgia in 2008, darn!
You mean when Georgia attacked South Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Do tell how that situation should have been handled.
Great question! Now do the same for the Baltics or Sweden.
You didn’t answer the question.
Also, not sure what I should be doing for the nazi chihuahuas that are literally a part of the most prolific invader in the world (and literally organise parades in honour of SS troops).You’ll be surprised how nervous smaller countries get when one of the strongest armies in the world regularly executes larger and larger maneuvers at their borders and in their airspace.
Well, they should probably stop invading everywhere, then, and pay reparations to the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine, and many other places.
Really bizarre to imply that they are some innocent victims of “one of the strongest armies in the world” when they are a part of the polity with the most expensive and vile military in the world.
Also bizarre to pretend as if they couldn’t, for example, ally with Russia if they needed protection from somebody. There was literally nothing preventing that (other than their greed and racism).They might even think about joining a defensive military alliance.
It’s cute how you pretend that the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocidaires of Palestine are a “defensive alliance”.
NATO leadership itself admits that it’s just there to do whatever the US tells them to do.If Russia doesn’t want that, then it was not the brightest move to double down and invade Ukraine.
NATO leadership has nobody but itself to blame for pushing for war with Russia (by their own admission) and then being beaten.
I feel like our interpretation of events differs enough not to really warrant further discussion. Nevertheless, here are the responses to your requests:
- Most importantly, I don’t think we will agree on whether a revolution or a coup happened in 2014 Ukraine. Of note here is that 73% of the parliament voted the president out of office, which gives this “coup” a pretty decent democratic basis.
- In addition to that fundamental disagreement, I think we are circling a hen-an-egg problem here, because I can always bring up some earlier aggression from Russia / the Soviet Union and then you can bring up some earlier aggression by NATO. They were in a cold war: There’s plenty. Fact is, both the invasion of 2014 and of 2022 were illegal by international law and by the very agreements that Russia had signed before.
- By all statistics which I’m aware of you are correct that most Crimeans wanted to join Russia in 2014. To make sure that was also reflected in the polls, multiple records of manipulation have been recorded by government and non-government organizations, the most severe IMO being to take away people’s identity documents. Various sources linked on the wiki, e.g., this one. The referendum was also held after Russian troops invaded the peninsula, whch is definitely not okay: Irrespective of the outcome of a referendum, Sweden could not just seize St. Petersburg and then hold a referendum there; that’d be absurd. And all this is irrespective of the genuinely difficult question whether such a referendum is binding. Neither the Ukrainian constitution nor the international agreements of 2003 (co-signed by Russia) contain such a mechanism. Secession is also not considered a general right by international law and it would probably lead to chaos if border regions constantly changed hands. However, I understand the semi-normative appeal of a referendum and I concede that most Crimeans are probably alright with being Russian for now. You may contrast the parliamentary decision I quote further up with this referendum and you are right to do so. Legally speaking, one of them just changed the government of an existing state while the other one moved the borders; the latter of which is much more invasive to the international order. The first one also asked the representatives of that whole country (alas, did not ask every single person in that country), while the second one only asked the region in question.
- This also leads to my next point: It seems that most of Ukrainians want to associate with Europe. If Russia is so big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with, why invade Ukraine in 2022? The same argument works for the occupied part of Georgia. Or for the regions predominantly settled by Crimean Tartars.
- And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason, it also applies to the Kurds. However, I don’t think bringing up the middle east contributes much to the topic at hand. Are you saying Russia was protecting countries in the middle east by carrying out military maneuvers over the Swedish airspace? Sweden and the Baltics didn’t really play an instrumental part in any of these campaigns. Did the US illegally invade some countries? Oh for sure! And they totally did pull NATO countries into some of these campaigns (e.g., Operation Enduring freedom). But how does that justify regularly threatening the Baltics or Sweden (the latter of which even used to be neutral before its chagrined association with NATO due to growing pressure from the East)?
- Are you suggesting the Baltics and Sweden should’ve allied with Russia to prevent them from being invaded by Russia? (Edit 2: That worked our really well for the democratic movement in Belarus… /s).
- In my reading of history, the Baltics and Sweden suffered both under Nazi occupation and Soviet occupation and both are commemorated with much pain and suffering in those countries; Nazi occupation of these countries, although a terrible part of history, is not really related to this discussion, though.
- Finishing with a petty little point on the side: Russia is not fighting NATO right now. Russia is fighting Ukraine, which receives weapons from NATO. With NATO boots on the ground, this conflict would look very different very quickly. However, NATO is demonstrating that, at least for now, it remains a defensive alliance that only springs into action when a member state is attacked by a foreign state adversary (or in the case of Operation Enduring freedom “a foreign state adversary”).
Edit: Adding this for completeness: I brought up Sweden and the Baltics because the second strongest military in the world (Russia) has much less reason of being afraid of the 26th strongest military (Sweden), than Sweden has a reason to be afraid vice versa. Even saying that Russia was afraid of the USA by proxy doesn’t change this much, A) because the US is not in Sweden, they could just project through Sweden, while Russia could actually march at Sweden if it wanted to, but more importantly, B) because number 2 vs number 1 is a much less drastic difference than number 2 vs number 26. Ranking linked here. Before 2022, everyone thought Russia could just overrun its neighbor states (like Ukraine) whenever it wanted to and this drove many of them into the arms of NATO, which has yet to invade a member state.
It’s still disgusting to see people celebrating more shortage and supply issues.
Along with those who instantly insult you when pointing out maybe food supply methods shouldn’t be targeted in this day an age, especially when it’s not what’s feeding the country being fought.
But it’s bankrolling the addression. I guess Ukraine needs every target it can find in a world where Europe buys russian oil and gas for more eurodollars than what they use to support Ukraines effort.
But it’s bankrolling the addression. I guess Ukraine needs every target it can find in a world where Europe buys russian oil and gas for more eurodollars than what they use to support Ukraines effort.
All this is saying is that it’s fine for Ukraine to cause world food shortages and target anything in Russia including civilian infrastructure.
At the same time the world needs to cut off the United States but won’t do that either. Even though they won’t it doesn’t give others the justification to bomb food sources. Well unless they are Israel
+ 800 .ml Credit
Good job, comrade. See gifts from Nutomic soon. /s
Good job CIA agent, you might maybe take a high-interest loan for a run-down studio in 15 years at this rate.
You say this, but you support the actual credit scores, along with things like colonialism and genocide.
Nope. You are claiming that, not me. Also, thinking that someone who disagrees with you on one thing also disagrees on all others is textbook tankie black and white thinking…
You are claiming that, not me
Of course you don’t claim that you support these things - you would rather conceal that fact.
And of course other people who see that you do support those things are going to point that out.Also, thinking that someone who disagrees with you on one thing also disagrees on all others is textbook tankie black and white thinking…
The word “tankie” just means “a person who is correct”. Time and time again, this fact keeps being proven.
other people who see that you do support those things are going to point that out
“see” where?
The word “tankie” just means “a person who is correct”
It means far authoritarian and (at least self proclaimed) left.
“see” where?
You do realise that we can see that you side with the most prolific invader in the world and repeat racist propaganda against their designated enemies, right?
It means far authoritarian and (at least self proclaimed) left.
Every time that people are accused of being “tankies”, they turn out to be correct.
Meanwhile, “authoritarian” is not a meaningful label, as all relevant polities are “authoritarian”, and the people who get called “tankies” are almost always to the left of those who invoke the word.You do realise that we can see that you side with the most prolific invader in the world and repeat racist propaganda against their designated enemies, right?
Show.
Do you deny that you posted the removed racist meme about credit scores?
I don’t get this joke, can you explain it?
Send both of them every tank in existence.
It gets messier when you remember that the current government of Ukraine is an ally of the Zionist entity and is providing air defense expertise to the perpetrators of the Gaza genocide, as well as participating in America’s aggression towards Iran. So while I understand the instinct, the unfortunate blunt reality is that these two sides are diametrically opposed.
Russia is also the ally of Israel
I’m not gonna get into this with a tankie
Make like June 4, 1989 and never happen
Literally no one denies that June 4, 1989 happened. What we disagree on is what happened.
Make like June 4, 1989 and never happen
Nice strawman.
Lowkey it was funny though, haven’t heard that one before
It’s a bit too wordy imo to be an effective stand in for “fuck off” imo lacks flow and rhythm.
I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the Firewall.
Sorry I don’t speak insufferable Reddit dork you’ll have to translate it or fuck off.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Dork
Fuck off
It’s that winning combination of perfectly ignorant and perfectly smug about it that makes you people so odious. Enjoy being on the Nazi side of World War 3 I suppose. Just don’t say you weren’t warned, because you’re being warned right now.
Blah blah blah
Free Tibet.
Always interesting how Tankies treat Tibet like how Americans treat Natives
We taught them how to read! That justifies it all! We went back on promises and treats and it’s their fault!! THEY DESERVED TO BE RE EDUCATED BY US
Do you ever read anything? Because you are obsessed with tankies and Hexbear to the point of being ridiculous and annoying.
All you come across as is pro-fascist and pro-slavery because Tibet suffered genuine slavery before CPC came in.
Just FYI, the Dalai Lama is a pedophile mentioned many times in the Epstein files.
The re-education: “So yeah, it was actually bad of the theocracy to enslave you in literal chains, rape, torture and mutilate you for fun. The poverty and abuse you experienced was not a divine punishment for your sins in past lives like the monks told you, it was inflicted on you by a class-based system of exploitation. You have value in this life comrade, not just the next. Here are some shoes.”
We went back on promises and treats and it’s their fault!!
Genuinely baffled by what you could even be talking about here. Are you just free-associating?
Anyway, it’s always interesting how dronies talk about feudal Tibet the way Confederate flag guys talk about the Antebellum South:
It was such a charming traditional society where everything was just better! There was harmony, and everyone got along and everything Just Worked. But then the big commie government came along and tyrannically enforced their woke shit about “rights for serfs” and “girls learning to read”. We treated our nantsam like family, they were happy as slaves!
Already did
You liberals get cooked every single time because you have no arguments.
Anarchists: “Let them fight.”
Nice crashout.
Do they have much of a choice while they’re being invaded?
Ukraine support for Israel preceed the invasion and Israel did nothing to help Ukraine in contrary voted against UN, resolution condrmning Russia aggression and have zero sanctions on it
Basically all of Europe and the US supported Israel in some fashion pre-invasion. Skip the middle man and invade Israel instead then.
It is wrong when Ukraine does it , it is bad when russia does it , it is bad when the usa does it , it is bad when the rest of europe does it, it is bad when china does not use it’s economical power to restrict israel . I do not advocate for attacking any middle man especially not Ukraine who is also experiencing a war of aggression on Ukraine
Does that matter to the people the UKR military kills in Iran and helps kill in Palestine?
But no, the Ukranian people have not had a choice in anything since having their government surgically replaced in 2014, or for that matter since having their government illegally dissolved in 1991.
My point with this specific post, as an olive branch to people who may not be familiar with the communist position, is not “Ukraine bad” so much as “This is what eventually happens to every American ‘ally’ no matter what promises have been made to the contrary, and other countries had best take notice”.
I don’t understand why tankies can’t make the logical step from “governments of the west don’t care about any peoples’ sovereignty (despite justifying their war efforts with claims that they do) because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power” to “no governments care about any peoples’ sovereignty because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power”
I actually did make that exact step as a teenage anarchist. Then I continued learning and realized this was an incorrect generalization, so I proceeded to update my understanding of the world in accordance with my dataset, something I have continued to do to this day and which has led me here. I followed a path of careful fact finding and reflection, and it turns out that political maturity is realizing the commies were correct.
If you learn enough, stay humble enough, and pay close enough attention, eventually that’s what happens. You realize that, generally speaking, the really high-octane commies have the most lucid understanding of the world out of any group out there, and the only reason this wasn’t always obvious to you was because you live under a capitalist power structure which aggressively indoctrinates its populace from birth into believing that communism is No No Bad Bad.
They have the most lucid and correct understanding of capitalism. They have the most lucid and correct understanding of imperialist extraction. They have the most lucid and correct understanding of western warmongering, global power dynamics, white supremacy, institutional racism and misogyny. That’s why they keep being proven right, about everything from US military actions to the fascism of the far right to the abusive nature of the so-called “moderate” liberal to the moral depravity of billionaires and the capitalist class.
there’s no group which perceives the abusive dynamics of this civilization with a greater degree of intellectual clarity as a whole.
…except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.
I don’t disagree with this as a whole–Marxists are pretty much dead on with most of their analysis and see the world a hell of a lot more clearly than people still indoctrinated by capitalism. The problem is that Marxists-Leninists don’t go far enough when they diagnose the problems with capitalist society. They think it’s enough that power structures are seized by the proletariat and set up to align with their interests, as they believe (based on their analysis of how societies work) this will inherently cause the power structures to wither away over time. But that’s not how power works. You can’t fully reduce it down to class conflict.
When a Marxist says “the history of societies is the history of class struggle”, imo there are two ways to read it: (a) Class and class struggle has made up the core of all societies’ structure and general existence for all history; or (b) There is nothing else to societies’ structure or general existence that is not reducible to class and class struggle
I agree with (a). It’s supported by history and evidence. (b) inherently can’t be because it presupposes itself.
From my own understanding of history, I think that a strictly ML understanding of how societies work misses a vitally important aspect of the role power plays. I could be wrong about that! But I’ve yet to see a ML explanation of why it’s necessarily wrong. And I think the reason for that it because ML theory presupposes itself. It wants to say (b). And in that sense, I think it’s actually a wildly un-humble framework: not only does it make the bold claim that all of history is just class, it forms the basis for governments that force this restrictive historical understanding on people and dismiss any other framework as liberal or reactionary.
As the article claims about MLs, there are plenty of anarchists who don’t know what they’re talking about–who have a really shallow understanding of power or are secretly just liberals. But anarcho-communism is thus far the only framework I’ve found that addresses all of the historical dynamics and structures identified by Marx and Marxists while still being humble enough to admit that it doesn’t necessarily hold all the right answers and that it’s not the only valid framework out there.
…except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.
That must be why anarcho-communism is the tendency that has spawned the most successful revolutions and uplifted all those hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Oh, wait.
while still being humble enough to admit that it doesn’t necessarily hold all the right answers and that it’s not the only valid framework out there.
except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.
Because that’s a kindergarten understanding of socialist/ML theory and politics in general
Is it? Or are y’all just so absorbed in your faux-scientific application of context-dependent dynamics to every aspect of how you think the world works that you’ve forgotten basic ideas like “people tend to want to hold onto power” and “people in power see threats to power as threats on their lives and will therefore do all they can to protect it”?
Can you think of any non context-dependent dynamics?
I don’t even know what you’re saying tbh. Context dependent dynamics? Power is bad and context is bad? Is that from some anarchist theory?
That’s a position I respect. Yep.
Yes American promises are why Russia invaded despite being signatories to a treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty.
Why do you think Russia invaded?
Excuses are great, still breaks a treaty.
That sort of thing has a real cost in geopolitics.
Condescension aside, saying that in favor of the faction that kicked this off by breaking both Minsk Agreements is some crazy irony
Anyway why did Russia cross the border, according to you?
ahh, yes, what else could they do when they’re being invaded other than committing genocide. poor ukronazis!
OK. So they should let Russia run their tanks through their towns and take over? What’s the take here?
They could have made a peace settlement a month in to the war in March 2022, given the DPR and LPR independence and not had to deal with anymore Russian invasions. But instead they listened to people like Boris Johnson enthusiastically telling them to fight to the last Ukrainian because we’ll keep giving you weapons.
That specifically is fair. That was a fairly small window of time though.
i dunno you could try and fight against the invasion or whatever cia fairy tale you tell yourself to believe you’re not a nazi yet without supporting a literal nazi state? oh yeah, the ukronazis are also fascist bastards so that’s what they want.
So they didn’t invade? You can call them Nazis all you like but let’s live in reality.
Germany was a Nazi state and they got invaded, whats your point
Loving this low effort controversy bait! LOVING IT. LOOOOOOOVE IT. NOT.
it’s bait for the nazi sympathizers to reveal themselves so they can catch a ban
Removed by mod
Nazism is when anti nazism
NOT.
1992 called; they want their sarcasm back.
Why not?
