It’s not being caused by the ones providing weapons, but the attackers though?
Are you the kind of people that thells people not to help the bullied kid against the bully because it will just make them take more hits? Just surrender to the bully, easy.
Thing is, a total military defeat of Russia has seemed very unlikely for all the duration of the conflict. It’s been ongoing for more than two years, and the only results so far are more Ukrainian territories occupied, and more death and destruction. Peace negotiations should be kept open at all times, and it should be up to Ukrainian people to decide the terms they agree to. Sadly, it has surfaced in an investigation from Foreign Affairs that some western powers like the UK or the US pushed Ukraine to stay in the war, for reasons that we can only speculate about. So, what’s the best course of action now?
“Um yes I understand that one side is a genocidal dictatorship which invaded unprovoked and the other side is a democratic state whose primary wish is not to be genocided, but let’s not divide this into good and evil!”
It’s insane what distances people will go to simp for fascism.
It’s rather misleading to portray Ukraine as a democracy in any sense of the word, but I’m curious as to which fascist state you’re immediately convinced I’m simping for here. Is it perhaps my own country, which I’ve watched debase its entire population with the plague of Christianity, authoritarianism and anti-“wokeness” into a horrifying type of zombie that still has the audacity to call itself a Russian “person”, all just to distract us from 200% cumulative inflation in 12 years that has reduced the horizon of planning of most of its people to one week, with the state replacing the notion of “law” with “obedience” in the process to polarize every living thing that has a brain?
I do not operate under the terms “the saviors” and “the baddies”, nor do I believe that the US should cease military aid to Ukraine. I’m just committed to dispelling the image of normalcy that a “good vs evil” portrayal creates.
It’s rather misleading to portray Ukraine as a democracy in any sense of the word,
How bizarre.
I do not operate under the terms “the saviors” and “the baddies”, nor do I believe that the US should cease military aid to Ukraine. I’m just committed to dispelling the image of normalcy that a “good vs evil” portrayal creates.
Well, this might be controversial, but most people regard “A nation not wanting to be genocided” as pretty anodyne, and “Government wanting to commit genocide” as pretty evil, so you’ll have to forgive me for not finding your “Um aktually” statements all that compelling in light of this situation, which is one of the least morally ambiguous conflicts of the 21st century.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense. What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense.
How curious, because you began by stating
to think this conflict involves “the good guys” in some way is laughable
It’s almost like a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
Yes, here we have the horrible motivation of [checks notes] not wanting Ukraine, a country who we have fairly close ties with, annexed by an authoritarian dictatorship who constantly causes trouble for us. Truly, we are vile opportunists here.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
Russia. And if you believe this conflict is something best described in ‘shades of gray’, then I still regard you as simping for Russia, in the same way that Juche apologists sometimes admit fault with North Korea, but always immediately pivot to “But South Korea Just As Bad™”. Playing “Bothsides!” games is old hat. It’s been overused. No one falls for it anymore. Sorry.
I do think that the substance of our disagreement here is minute and the “no good side” statement I opened this with is far from the best way of wording what I was referring to here. Please note, however, that at no point did I bring “shades of gray” or “both sides equally bad” into the conversation, and that the antagonistic nature of your gotcha is deeply reductive, insensitive and automated.
It’s crazy that this isn’t even the first comment I’ve seen this week arguing that the Ukraine war is somehow a conspiracy by the West to sell more weapons, as if Russia didn’t just roll up and invade them, illegally and unprovoked
Do you recognize being invaded by a foreign country is a legitimate problem a country might have to face? If you do, and you oppose private military industry, that means you support public military industry, right?
Ofc there are situations that require military defense expenses. Once said that, using the military expenses to cross all the red lines drawn in the aftermath of WW2 is not to prevent a foreign invasion, but to instigate the chapter 3.
Do you think Russia will patiently wait until every country bordering it is pointing missiles at it? Then you understand nothing about big-scale military conflicts.
“Patiently wait” is a funny way to spell “invade and systematically undermine.”
No reason every country around them has missiles - right? No history of getting rolled, by them. Not like there’s an alliance specifically dedicated to stopping them from gobbling up nearby territory whenever they feel like it.
By “crossing the red lines” do you mean ex-Eastern block countries joining NATO? Those countries joined out of their own free will BECAUSE they feared Russia might want to attack them. And, oh surprise, Russia did attack the one country not sucking up to them that didn’t join NATO. Why should Russia’s security be sacred above that of all its neighbours?
If by red lines you don’t mean that, then they’ve clearly not been crossed. Russia and US or EU troops have not directly fought each other, and no country has used nuclear weapons so far.
A good way imperialists discovered to launder money from european and americans taxpayers. Fuck Zelensky ( don’t mistake with Ukrainian people)
Those damn imperialists providing weapons to a sovereign country in order to protect itself from it’s imperialist neighbor trying to annex it!
I don’t think Russian imperial warfare in Ukraine is necessarily contradictory with American imperial interest in Ukraine
to think this conflict involves “the good guys” in some way is laughable
Multiple things can be true. Both of these claims are true.
It benefits NATO countries to curb the expansion of a rival power without losing a single soldier.
Assisting in a sovereign country in resisting annexation by a genocidal occupier is a good thing.
You don’t always have to suffer to help someone else, some situations can be win-win.
If you forget all the death and destruction caused by this war, then yes. I’m sure it’s very profitable.
It’s not being caused by the ones providing weapons, but the attackers though?
Are you the kind of people that thells people not to help the bullied kid against the bully because it will just make them take more hits? Just surrender to the bully, easy.
Thing is, a total military defeat of Russia has seemed very unlikely for all the duration of the conflict. It’s been ongoing for more than two years, and the only results so far are more Ukrainian territories occupied, and more death and destruction. Peace negotiations should be kept open at all times, and it should be up to Ukrainian people to decide the terms they agree to. Sadly, it has surfaced in an investigation from Foreign Affairs that some western powers like the UK or the US pushed Ukraine to stay in the war, for reasons that we can only speculate about. So, what’s the best course of action now?
“Um yes I understand that one side is a genocidal dictatorship which invaded unprovoked and the other side is a democratic state whose primary wish is not to be genocided, but let’s not divide this into good and evil!”
It’s insane what distances people will go to simp for fascism.
It’s rather misleading to portray Ukraine as a democracy in any sense of the word, but I’m curious as to which fascist state you’re immediately convinced I’m simping for here. Is it perhaps my own country, which I’ve watched debase its entire population with the plague of Christianity, authoritarianism and anti-“wokeness” into a horrifying type of zombie that still has the audacity to call itself a Russian “person”, all just to distract us from 200% cumulative inflation in 12 years that has reduced the horizon of planning of most of its people to one week, with the state replacing the notion of “law” with “obedience” in the process to polarize every living thing that has a brain?
I do not operate under the terms “the saviors” and “the baddies”, nor do I believe that the US should cease military aid to Ukraine. I’m just committed to dispelling the image of normalcy that a “good vs evil” portrayal creates.
How bizarre.
Well, this might be controversial, but most people regard “A nation not wanting to be genocided” as pretty anodyne, and “Government wanting to commit genocide” as pretty evil, so you’ll have to forgive me for not finding your “Um aktually” statements all that compelling in light of this situation, which is one of the least morally ambiguous conflicts of the 21st century.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense. What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
How curious, because you began by stating
It’s almost like a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
Yes, here we have the horrible motivation of [checks notes] not wanting Ukraine, a country who we have fairly close ties with, annexed by an authoritarian dictatorship who constantly causes trouble for us. Truly, we are vile opportunists here.
Russia. And if you believe this conflict is something best described in ‘shades of gray’, then I still regard you as simping for Russia, in the same way that Juche apologists sometimes admit fault with North Korea, but always immediately pivot to “But South Korea Just As Bad™”. Playing “Bothsides!” games is old hat. It’s been overused. No one falls for it anymore. Sorry.
I do think that the substance of our disagreement here is minute and the “no good side” statement I opened this with is far from the best way of wording what I was referring to here. Please note, however, that at no point did I bring “shades of gray” or “both sides equally bad” into the conversation, and that the antagonistic nature of your gotcha is deeply reductive, insensitive and automated.
It’s crazy that this isn’t even the first comment I’ve seen this week arguing that the Ukraine war is somehow a conspiracy by the West to sell more weapons, as if Russia didn’t just roll up and invade them, illegally and unprovoked
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a colossal arms industry that will bankrupt the West and Russia the day wars around the world end.
Do you recognize being invaded by a foreign country is a legitimate problem a country might have to face? If you do, and you oppose private military industry, that means you support public military industry, right?
Ofc there are situations that require military defense expenses. Once said that, using the military expenses to cross all the red lines drawn in the aftermath of WW2 is not to prevent a foreign invasion, but to instigate the chapter 3.
Do you think Russia will patiently wait until every country bordering it is pointing missiles at it? Then you understand nothing about big-scale military conflicts.
Oh poor russia, lol.
“Patiently wait” is a funny way to spell “invade and systematically undermine.”
No reason every country around them has missiles - right? No history of getting rolled, by them. Not like there’s an alliance specifically dedicated to stopping them from gobbling up nearby territory whenever they feel like it.
By “crossing the red lines” do you mean ex-Eastern block countries joining NATO? Those countries joined out of their own free will BECAUSE they feared Russia might want to attack them. And, oh surprise, Russia did attack the one country not sucking up to them that didn’t join NATO. Why should Russia’s security be sacred above that of all its neighbours?
If by red lines you don’t mean that, then they’ve clearly not been crossed. Russia and US or EU troops have not directly fought each other, and no country has used nuclear weapons so far.
Okay Putin
Oh, honey… You won’t find many useful idiots here. Try Reddit.
I wish that were true. Plenty of people on .ml and hexbear willing to suck up to Putin.
6 upvotes and they’re on a .de instance. Smdh