I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
If Russia stops fighting there would be no war. If Ukraine stops fighting there would be no Ukraine.
Well said.
At this stage, since they have fought so well, I’d guess there would just be a much smaller, much weaker Ukraine.
We will likely see this happen now Trump is president. He is too egotistical to not take revenge on them for not playing along with his quid pro quo back in 2019.
The Ukrainian flags in republican yards never meant a thing… They sold Ukraine out at the polls.
That includes only battlefield context. Truth is Russia will at the very best economically and politically fall into a 3rd world country level the moment it loses the war. More probably dissolve into smaller states = there would be no Russia as we know it today anymore.
Good. After what they’ve done, they don’t deserve to exist as a nation anymore.
Yeah. Let US the saint be world’s boss. Never killed a fly anyway.
Literally repeating US State Dept. talking points.
This guy floating up to the sky when US State Department says that gravity is real
… and the WMD’s will be found any day now in Iraq General Powell.
I don’t think you understood the joke. Do you know the saying about a broken clock?
Do you do anything besides shitpost and deliberately misinterpret people?
Kicking the dogs passes the time.
And? The saying was popular before Blinken’s speech btw.
I can’t find an earlier source. And it’s not accurate:
Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper
In the weeks ahead of Johnson’s April 9 visit, high-level diplomatic talks held in Belarus and Turkey had failed to yield a diplomatic breakthrough, though reports in mid-March indicated that Russian and Ukrainian delegations “made significant progress” toward a 15-point peace deal that would involve Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow’s troops.
Remember that the original Canadian intent of the UN Peacekeepers was that they would forcibly create and enforce peace.
It was the USSR and the USA that objected to the concept.
Similarly if most countries have a mutual defence pact, no one country will be able to invade another without being at war with literally the whole world.
I’m afraid that mutual defense isn’t as iron clad as you think. If Article 5 of NATO ever gets triggered you’ll get a masterclass on weaseling out of obligations. It’s ironic because Ukraine may already be receiving the kind of support a full NATO member is entitled to.
Unfortunately with Trump the US will try to weasel their way out. Europe knows too well what happens.
This does seem likely with Trump… but he’s also in bed with the military-industrial complex, which never misses a chance to get contracts.
It only works if you actually commit to it.
But imagine the implications if a country did not commit to it (bar an obvious one like Hungary or Turkey). They’ll likely get sanctioned, probably will have trouble entering any useful alliances for the next decade or so because no one trusts them anymore.
If one didn’t, sure. But what happens when NATO as a whole doesn’t defend Poland? What’s Poland going to do? Or even just Trump’s US?
The trick is that (Eastern) Europe is filled with NATO troops and material from all countries. You would need an extremely nasty retreat of these troops if you do not support (say) Poland. Also at the moment (officially) the US has stationed nuclear weapons in 6 European countries, and there are very likely more also in the form of submarines that are not known to the public. Retreating means leaving those weapons in Russian hands. Then again, maybe Trump does not care about that.
Well ideally if you don’t want to be a part of an agreement, you just tell the people you made the agreement with that you are no longer a part of it.
If you do so amicably, parties may be fine with it it may not have bad effects. If you wait till one of those counties is being invaded and back out, it likely would not end amicably, and with them having to switch over to a wartime economy, they may cut all trade moving forward with the member who screwed them over. Could cost the U.S. trillions in trade annually.
Aka it would be more profitable to support your allies, or get out of the agreement early, but that doesn’t guarantee counties don’t say… Why should we trade with someone who would hang us out to dry? And it hurts our economy anyway.
Article 5 was triggered by 9/11 and is the reason everyone followed America into Afghanistan
Ww1
Ireland has peacekeepers between Israel and Lebanon right now. They wouldn’t be there if “create peace” was one of the missions.
Peace must exist, however briefly, and then the peacekeepers place themselves in harm’s way to keep the peace.
Extend the mission to militarily “create peace” and suddenly you are just NATO/USA. How can either side trust a peace that was enforced upon them and not call it a defeat, whose borders are disputed for eternity? Every nationalist who wants to stir sentiment can just say “look what the British/Americans/UN imposed on us”. Outside forces drawing borders is pretty much the cause of 90% of warfare, civil and otherwise, for the last 80 years.
A Canadian was also the principal author of the UN declaration on human rights, and another was the reason NATO is a political as well as military alliance. We just keep winning!
I don’t understand how other communists can defend Russia at this point. It feels to me like most of them forget that Russia is no longer a communist country.
They’re capitalists. Putin is often using christo-fascist tactics. He’s also pushing for Russian imperialism in very capitalistic ways. Also, Russia was 100 percent the agitators here.
Just because it challenges US worldwide hegemony doesn’t automatically make it good, boys.
Tankies might as well be called CINOs — communists in name only. Their defining feature is reverence towards authoritarian leaders. They revere Putin and Xi as “strong” leaders and completely ignore how little their regimes have in common with the socialist workers paradise Marx envisioned.
My favorite is when they argue that China has billionaires and private property and a stock market because Marx said you have to go through capitalism to get to communism. Which… doesn’t somehow also apply to the West?
Gee I wonder who you could be referring to mmmmhhh gee I really wonder.
Tankies?
Sorry I dropped the /s somewhere
What makes you say they don’t think it applies to the West? I don’t follow your logic there.
Because if you tell them China is just as capitalist as the West, they tell you it absolutely isn’t and is a communist country.
Ok but China is absolutely not as capitalist as the west, and that’s an insane thing to say.
I’d buy that line if China wasn’t integrating those large businesses (albeit slowly) into the public sector, something the west is not doing, but rather moving to deregulate more and more (Thanks Trump! /s)
And yet it’s still not a communist country. I get that you want it to be a communist country, but it isn’t.
You won’t see me argue that China is communist, it’s socialist as it stands now with the stated goal of becoming communist
I’ll stick with “Cosplay Commies”.
I especially despise how Putin and Xi were seen as ‘strong’ leaders, but when shit hit the fan in the last 5 years, they just hid away from repercussions
Do you know what you’ve done!? You’ve summoned him! He’s like Beetlejuice, say three Marxist terms and he appears. Combie will be here soon.
Removed by mod
Seriously. Those dumb Iraqis who fought back deserved to die.
I’m really curious how or why it works. Do they hate US so much that anyone against the US seems a hero to them, despite being off the same kind but pretending to be a communist/socialist?
I am curious about this as well. At least in some cases, it seems to be due to “alternate facts”, e.g., https://lemmy.ca/comment/13198294
Are they saying that the U.S. was preparing Ukraine for war in 2014… Which Russia had started moving their forces in 2013 and started the invasion in February of 2014. It’s like how people try to say “well Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if Trump had still been president”… When Russia mobilized their troops and equipment and marched them there for the invasion while Trump was still President.
Damn, that’s alternate as fuck 🤢
That was an… interesting read 😅
That’s exactly the reason (even if they don’t 100% admit it) for the communist parties in my country.
A surprising portion of people in the northern hemisphere think that a person having lots of money is literally exactly the same thing as a person having lots of blessings from [deity]. They see that Russia is run by oligarchs, and that since those oligarchs command lots of currency, they are inherently chosen by [diety] to always be correct.
Who thinks that? Are we talking about the old Pharaoh’s of Egypt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
I notice this to be most prevalent amongst the Russian Orthodox people I know as well as Evangelical Christians, but it’s not limited to those.
I’d say these two probably think something along those lines…
Okay… so this makes me wonder where the artwork came from before they put words over it. That donkey is jacked and has a very bright smile for a farm animal. Do you think the person who did the artwork had no idea what they were going to write over it, or just that they’ve got some closeted desires they haven’t figured out how to discuss openly yet?
Maybe it’s a Divine Donkey lol
I’m guessing it’s clip art.
There is rarely, if ever, support for Putin. What is more typical is a recognition the USSR was a better entity than both what it replaced and what replaced it. So there is usually the connection that the US is the reason Russia is the way it is, which is usually lauded as ‘USA bad’.
So even though America was the global superpower after the fall of the USSR: Putin, (or at least someone like him), was wanted in power. ‘Keep rootin for Putin’ wasn’t just a pundit book 20 years ago.
All in all when the goal is eradicating communism at all costs, you wind up with war mongering right wingers in their stead: and that’s the perspective every communist I have interacted with has come from.
It’s like their version of STOP RESISTING.
My Mom said Russia had to attack Ukraine, because they were trying to join NATO. I asked why she thinks Ukraine was trying to join NATO. I’m still digging for a bedrock of logic.
Part of the problem with game theory and finding a “bedrock of logic” is that game theoretical analysis is often recursive. It’s not a stack of prepositions and conclusions; it’s often a loop. Sort of like a resonance structure. I’ve got my gun aimed at you because your gun is aimed at me because my gun is aimed at you … recursively forever.
My understanding is that the US/NATO and the USSR/Russia, ie the two sides of the Cold War, have maintained a sense of peace and security by maintaining a buffer between the two sides. A buffer of distance, which is relevant because it relates to the time it takes nuclear weapons to travel from one adversarial territory to the other.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.
The public declaration (by Kamala Harris, incidentally) that Ukraine would join NATO is a violation of a promise made by Reagan that NATO would not extend to the border of Russia.
It’s similar to the USSR’s attempt to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, in the sense that it’s simply too close.
That’s my understanding of the motivation behind Russia’s invasion. I’m quite new to all this though.
So it’s less like “Stop resisting!” and more like “Drop the gun!”
My suspicion is that MAD overall is diminishing in its power to stabilize the world militarily, as a result of new military technologies coming into play (space-based weapons, drones, AI, hypersonic missiles, iron dome scenarios) as well as more and more nuclear powers coming online, and the increasing probability of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors.
And finally there’s China’s overall rise toward the role of hegemonic power.
The Cold War basically organized itself (and hence organized the influences that minimized military action) around two major powers. Now there’s a third major power that’s rapidly accelerating toward becoming the major power. It’s changing all the equations that balanced out in the 1970s, 80s, etc.
The reason Ukraine wanted to join NATO is that Russia already had occupied Crimea and part of Georgia before. All that after Ukraine gave up all the nukes they still had from USSR times. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia before the occupation of Crimea.
Distance is really not much of a factor any more, and hasn’t been for a long time. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg can already be reached by submarine launched cruise missiles in less than 15 minutes (conservative estimate). And let’s face it, with MAD being a thing, any kind of nuclear strike is likely to escalate into all-out nuclear annihilation, anyway. This makes any attempt at overwhelming the opponent a losing proposition. So in that sense nothing has changed since, oh, the mid-1970s?
Then there is the argument that Russia doesn’t want a long shared border with NATO. Guess what, their aggression has caused Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which has only added to their shared border with NATO. That they already had with Poland and the Baltic states (there is no treaty nor official document prohibiting NATO expansion).
And finally, how hard is it to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance? It is neither politically geared to nor militarily capable of mounting a conquest of Russia. The fact that so many of Russia’s neighbors are eager to join the alliance should be a pretty strong hint as to why it needs to exist in the first place. It is Russia that cannot be trusted, not NATO. And you can’t make your neighbor “drop the gun” in their own house. The Ukrainians were stupid enough already to return their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for explicit security guarantees. What a mistake that was.
Don’t even get me started on how China is criminally underrated as a manifest threat to world peace…
The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.
The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by Kennedy moving nuclear missiles into Turkey, within striking range of the USSR. It never would have happened if Kennedy hadn’t decided to start swinging his dick around.
I don’t even know what they (western tankies) get from this. Average dumbass Russian only cares about his ass, and the pretended “glory”. There is no “Conservative brotherhood which spans across the ocean”. They don’t speak your language, they don’t have the same problem, and they hate YOU with passion, because on average, they are racist and dumb.
So my only hypothesis is that tankies think (??) that by going “contrarian” they show how smart they are, and that “did the research” lol.
No, it’s because “America bad”. There’s a lot of reasons to hate America, and the drip feeding of munitions to Ukraine is one of them. I think we should have been sending everything from the start with the only restriction being no hitting civilian targets. A million 155 shells a week. Tomahawks. Predator drones. Hell, even F-15s. I agree, end the war, but end it in a Ukrainian victory with their borders restored.
It’s even worse than that. It’s “America bad, therefore Russia good.” As if there has to be some sort of cosmic balance.
as if there has to be some sort of cosmic balance
Got me laughing, very true observation
Would have been nice to send a message to Vlad on day 1.
“Turnabout is fair play”
The best way to minimize the overall violence of a fight is to use enough force in the first moments to end the fight.
Generally speaking. Maybe.
There was never any chance of Ukrainian victory. Russia is not that weak and everyone knew it from the start.
But arming ukrainians and sending them to die weakens Russia, so the US likes that. It’s all a game, and none of it was ever in the interest of Ukraine nor its people.
Kyiv in three days!
I had a reply for a similar comment; trying to link it here, to avoid copy-pasting: https://lemmy.ml/post/23582488/15569369
I’m sure you’ll just dismiss this all as Western Imperialist propaganda since it disagrees with your worldview, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy#Three_day_war_plan
Of course, in public, Putin was much more pragmatic.
He said it would be two weeks.
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/
So would you prefer, “Kyiv in two weeks?” I’ll go with that. Exactly the same stupid idea.
Seems to me that Ukraine still exists as a country and that wouldn’t be the case if not for international support.
Are you hoping for a restoration of the Soviet Union? Any other countries on your list that don’t deserve to exist?
Russia has a long and proud history of losing to "smaller, weaker " countries. Russo Japanese war, WW1, Polish Soviet war of 1919, the winter war, Afghanistan, Chechen war until they paid homage to the Kadyrovs. there’s no reason to think there was never a chance at Ukrainian victory. Russia fumbles the bag plenty. But I get it. America bad so Russia stonk and good.
America bad so Russia stonk and good.
I think this kinda reductionist bs abolishes any kind of discussion. What does this have to do with anything? Where did I say such things?
But arming ukrainians and sending them to die weakens Russia, so the US likes that.
Right there. You said it right there And you’re changing the subject. Russian victory was never a forgone conclusion. History has shown us that.
Yet 3 years later Russia still has not completed its objectives, took its eye off Syria, and needs troops & ammo from North Korea.
And all it took was 1,000,000 dead Ukrainians!
Murdered by Russian. So tell me, in this peace of yours, who gets what and why?
You’re blaming them for defending themselves???
Tankies entire world view is formed around hating the US.
They will glorify terrible regimes that literally commit genocides and straight up murder thousands of innocents just because that regime is in opposition to US influence.
They use left wing language, but they do not care about leftist issues. They do not care about disabled people getting focibly euthanised, about anyone who dares critique the regime being forcibly silenced, about minorities being genocided (unless the US or NATO does it), that their “socialist states” literally have billionaires while others starve. They think it’s all US propaganda. (Alternatively, they’ll admit part of it and say it’s for the greater good).
A much simpler way of putting that second picture is: " . . . but that doesn’t mean you have to support another empire."
Removed by mod
They want power, over others, forever.
Removed by mod
Do you wish someone supported Iraq against America?
By the usual tankie logic, Iraq should have just given up. They had no chance to win the war.
You lack nuance.
You can’t see your own hypocrisy here at all and it’s rich af.
I’m not a tankie, but I probably am what everyone in this thread is calling a “tankie”, so here’s my answer:
Yes, it is extremely bad that Russia invaded Ukraine. The ideal scenario would have been Ukraine quickly repelling the invasion when it happened. But we don’t live in magic fantasy world where everyone gets what they deserve. We live in the real world, where Ukraine cannot possibly defeat Russia in a war. The option which saves the most Ukrainian lives is a negotiated peace, with Russia getting much more of what they want than we would like.
All that is achieved by pouring more weapons into Ukraine is prolonging the meatgrinder for years, wiping out an entire generation of Ukrainians and risking a global nuclear war.
Ukraine had a negotiated peace before the 2022 invasion, after the 2014 invasion. Why would a 2025 negotiated peace be any more reliable?
Just „take your land“?
Looks to me also like „destroy your culture“ and „torture, maim, rape and kill your friends and family“.
Well, they did say “Destroy you and take your land”.
Though I agree that “destroy” is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence.
I wonder how these people would feel if there were individuals that would argue for thieves to break into their homes and take it over.
“I don’t want anything of mine stolen! they broke in!”
“But sir, why don’t you want people to have a place to live in? Make peace with it!”
Don’t forget… They broke into your house, took over your living room, killed 2 of your family members in there and said “Let’s make an election”. Surprisingly, they won the election in your living room, because dead people can’t vote and they were allowed to vote, too.
It’s more like you fight your roommate and his friends come over to bully you. You get some weapon once in a while through the window. Still you are on your own vs 10. Also from outside they instruct you to use your young children to fight.
You forgot the person standing to the other side saying, “But what about that time when America…!?”
I know it’s not relevant but it’s funny (and sad) how you can replace the two flags with Israel and Palestine and it still works.
Only switch the Ukraine guy with a palastinian child.
And its not MAGAts and tankies backing it but, neolibs and centrist conservatives (with the MAGAts as well).
MAGAts are either too stupid to realize or too fragile to acknowledge that they’re getting ass-fucked by putin. It’s just pathetic.
It’s so bizarre to see those old Soldiers of Fortune readers, with their “Better dead than red” tee shirts, all now rooting for Russia.
Are you aware the Biden administration hasn’t spoken to Putin’s staff in two years?
Is there, in your analogy, a macho, straight, totally non anal-sex-related kind of dignity in that refusal to communicate with a nuclear adversary?
I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov. Is that me just going to town on Putin’s veiny cock? Is this whole thing just a big revealer of who’s really gay and who’s not?
I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov.
Thanks for giving us ample reason to not care about your opinions.
Yes. You are going to town on his weiny cock.
perfectly agree with the meme, that said I’ve tried to make the same argument to people IRL and their response usually is “well Ukraine provoked them by trying to join NATO” and being the absolute dumbass that I am, I can never come up with a decent answer on the spot.
does anyone have a cool one liner to use or am I stuck with having to explain the various geopolitical issuesThe idea of Ukraine joining NATO was literally unimaginable before Russian aggression. After the fall of the soviet union there were multiple agreements like the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine and Budapest Memorandum that basically established Ukraine as a sovereign and neutral nation under the protection of the west and east. Even after Russian interventions in Ukraine and finally the taking of Crimea, NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.
Also if Russia truly cared about NATO expansion, how come we barely hear anything about Finland and Sweeden? I occasionally even forget they’re a part of it now.
In the case of Finland, it’s because they kicked Russia’s ass last time and they would do it again.
They just have to announce that they’ve cloned Simo Häyhä and Russia won’t even look at them sideways.
We lost, both times.
NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.
I sometimes think that it was exactly because they expected things to go as they did. If they let Ukraine in, they would need to
weasel out of helpinghelp, after allShows how little u know. Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
Then zelensky tried to get nuclear weapons.Again - don’t follow msm, they have an agenda.
And you surely don’t have an agenda.
That’s why you come here with lies lmao
I don’t care about Ukraine. I don’t want my money going into military to support a country that has universal health care while I still do t have universal health care.
Fund universal healthcare, not Ukraine or Israel.
UHC is cheaper than the current US healthcare system. You can literally have both.
Funding for Ukraine isn’t holding up UHC. Bad politicians are.
Someone needs to force their hand, if you just give them what they want anyways, there is no reason for them to do anything for u
Not sure punishing Ukrainians who are being raped and murdered in their own homes forces their hand in any way whatsoever. Seems like the least efficient way to do it.
I think you need to learn how the Military-Industrial Complex works, because if weapons aren’t going to Ukraine, and it sounds like they won’t, you still won’t get your socialized medicine. Especially not in an oligarchical fascist dictatorship.
We the people should get stubborn and refuse to support the goals of military industrial complex as long as they keep refusing us our goals.
I get absolutely nothing from Israel achieving it’s goals of killing brown neighboring people and clearing space for themselves. Nothing.
Ukraine - u know what! I don’t care about it. Just cut a deal for mutual management of Ukraine and equal economic access. I don’t care about Ukraine winning or Ukraine being a strong country in eastern Europe. I do not care. It’s outside of my interests as a private citizen, only military industrial complex wants that war.
What are you doing to get “we the people” to do that other than arguing on the internet?
Fair, but it misses the trees for the forest. The US already pays WAY more for healthcare than any other country. The money is literally there, just mismanaged. While I feel your frustration, simply cutting aid to allied countries won’t change anything domestically.
They are not allied countries for me.
Israel is a genocidal regime and Ukraine is just a shithole in eastern Europe.I don’t need these as allies.
I get absolutely nothing, 0 from funding them. Cut themReally? You’re going to complain about one country’s genocide and justify another in the same sentence? At least be consistent
Okay so DO something about YOUR healthcare then.
Citation needed.
The Ukranian constitution has no amendments even mentioning NATO.
And Zelenky demanding nuclear weapons is a recent development. So not “tried” but “trying right now”. Not even the Russians claimed such prior.
And I don’t watch MSNBC or whatever else “msm” is supposed to be. Bold of you to assume I not only watch American news, but also a specific broadcaster. That’s got to be like a less than 50% chance.
MSM is mainstream media rather than a broadcaster. I actually hear it a lot from conservatives who are somehow convinced that Fox News isn’t mainstream media despite being the USA’s most watched network.
Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
Everyone knows that’s how becoming a NATO member works!
The EU works that way too! You tell them you want to join, make it super official that you pretty please want to join, and then you’re in!
The husband who beats his wife analogy might work. “She deserved it, she thought about going to the police” Another thing, even if it was predictable doesn’t make it wrong to help Ukraine no matter what.
The husband who beats his wife analogy might work.
These are the same people who support Trump and putin soooo
Removed by mod
It basically comes down to this: being a sovereign nation means being allowed to choose your own alliances.
Calling it a “provocation” is denying Ukraine sovereignty over their own country.
Which is fundamental misunderstanding of international politics according to Political Realism. Hegemonic powers never care about these de jure arguments anyway and will practicality always act in accordance to int’s own intressets, leaving weaker nations to navigate it.
Hegemonic powers
You can just say Russia you know. And yes, we know Russia doesn’t care about de jure arguments, they only understand power and violence. De-jure arguments are just a tool to them to give talking points to useful idiots in the West, in order to sow division and weaken us.
Political Realism
The question really is: do we accept a world where a third-rate regional power gets to trample all over its neighbors, using unimaginable violence and cruelty if those neighbors refuse to act as submissive client states?
From a moral and legal point of view, it’s a no-brainer to argue that we should not accept this, but even from your a-moral “real politik” point of view we should not accept it either because it goes squarely against our own interests to let a rogue state Russia regain its former superpower status by conquering major client states. Europe and the US are much stronger than Russia, so even your Political Realism dictates that we should help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression.
So yeah, there is no world in which “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is a valid argument. If you think there is, you can burn in hell with Kissinger for all I care.
You can just say Russia you know.
Alright. Consider it done and now your response is some sort of recognition that that what i said is the case but this well established, hundreds of years old field of political theory is devilish trick by our enemies to devise us. Which does nothing to strengthen your shallow view on national sovereignty.
As already hinted at: Political Realism is a fucking theory of international relations. It’s used to explain things in reality. So you have to understand that it’s true for every hegemonic power. It’s not unique to Russia. Do you think that the US lead invasion of Afghanistan was respecting their sovereignty? They had no obligation to extradite Bin Laden and we got to see what it meant to not dance to their pipe. The list can go on ad nauseam, we have a couple of thousand years of ‘whatabouts’ here. There is no need to pretend that this is some weird trick of our enemies to divide and fool you, it’s an observable fact about international politics. And it absolutely does you no favors to have this self-sealing mind in the face of it. Weaker nations have always, and will continue, to curtail their own sovereign choices in favor of navigating the interests of greater powers and kept as much sovereignty as they can. Sure they have the radical free will to do anything, but in reality things happens as a result… even if you don’t like it. And hence a field of science to understand this process, that looks a-moral due to a lack of having it observed.
Heck, I see that you sort of get the principles of the political theory. As you said, it’s in the west interest to not have Russia attack her neighbors. So it manages to describe both Russias actions and the West response to it. It will even describe the limits of our support.
So a better counter to “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is to say yes, but I want a want a weak Russia.
“So a nation is not allowed to make its own decision about defense or else Russia just gets to have it?”
“Nations beg to join NATO which is very reluctant and has a long drawn out entry process”
And the annexation of crimea was not provoking and pressuring them to search for defense from NATO?
For the fucking tankies and MAGAts, if the French and King Louis XVI would have turned their backs on the US colonials from 1775 to 1783, the Red Coats would have crushed your rebellion and you would have been another Dominion like Canada. Hang on, someone press reset.
You mean I would have had universal healthcare?!
Mother fucking French…
😂 …indeed.
So I understand that MAGA is U.S. based, but how many of the “tankies” do you really think are from the U.S.
Red-painted fascists just can’t help themselves. War is Completely Justified Resistance And Blowback until someone actually fights back, at which point it’s Pointlessly Extending The Conflict
/me sees title. “Oh, these comments are gonna be fun…”
