• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s simply not credible for a group of countries responsible for constant invasions of other countries to claim to be defending borders or supporting any sort of international law. The US at this very moment is occupying a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine.

    • mormund@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      That is just what-about-ism. The US doing bad things is no reason to allow other nations to fight imperialistic wars.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nah it’s not just whataboutism, this is a conflict between NATO and Russia. NATO is claiming to have some moral superiority in this conflict, but it’s very obvious that NATO is fighting an imperialistic war for control of Ukraine.

        • mormund@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Ah, yes of course. How could I miss how supplying the people of a sovereign nation with weapons and intelligence in a defensive ground war against a foreign invader is building an empire. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ah yes, NATO is just altruistically helping the right wing regime that the west installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the legitimate democratically elected government. 🤡

            • mormund@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              Even if that were true (and I don’t think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                You don’t have to take Putin’s word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:

                The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

                The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

                So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

                https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

                you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire?

                That’s not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war

                However, if you don’t trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled “Extending Russia” that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

                Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition?

                The war could’ve been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could’ve been avoided entirely if the west didn’t insist on NATO expansion and didn’t overthrow the government in Ukraine.

                • mormund@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn’t say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I’ll pretend with you it is true.

                  Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I’m sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I’ve got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    It’s amazing how people just keep regurgitating these talking points. It’s just so incredibly shallow and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the situation. There is no comparison with WW2 here. In fact, the best comparison to make would be Yugoslavia where NATO recognized separatist regions as being independent, and then had them invite NATO to invade and destroy Yugoslavia. That’s the actual model that Russia is using in Ukraine.

    • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?

      Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State

      Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?

      So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.

        • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          So your contention is that Nation A considering joining an alliance that Nation B doesn’t like - not actually joining, just considering - is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

          Jesus what a world that would be.

          • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            […] is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

            See, that’s an entirely different statement. Threatening to join Russia’s geopolitical rival’s military alliance while bordering Russia, is provocation. The acts in Donbas since 2014 are provocation. Is it “worthy of military invasion”? I don’t believe so. The proto-fascist Russian government is clearly not acting entirely out of pure will and self defense, and I’ll be the last to defend it since I have loved ones directly suffering under that government. But it’s important to frame things correctly, and yes, threatening to join NATO while bordering Russia is a huge provocation.

            Particularly, NATO has no history of defensiveness (as far as I know it has never intervened for the defensive purposes it’s supposed to uphold), but it has a history of offensiveness. Yugoslavia and Libya can both attest to that, and extra-officially (technically not NATO interventions even if many NATO members participated one way or another), countries such as Iraq can also attest. The case of Iraq is a perfect example of what unprovoked invasion in modern times is, and we are still forced to see libs fall heads over heels for a fucking Dick Satan Cheney endorsement to Kamala “most lethal army in the world” Harris.

            So, yes, when a country bordering you chooses to join a historically aggressive military alliance that openly challenges you, that’s huge provocation. And it’s important to state so when we talk about the war in Ukraine.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The US is in Syria against the will of the legitimate government of Syria that’s recognized by the UN. This is an invasion and a violation of the sovereignty of Syria. Period.

        The fact that you rushed in to try and paint it as something other while bleating about Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine says everything we need to know about you.

        • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.