this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
318 readers
1 users here now
Anything about Europe. You can post in any European language.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or you could just stops antagonizing Russia.
Or Russia could not invade other nations?
The US had Ukraine prodding Russia for 8 years until Russia intervened. Had shit like in Ukraine 2014 happened in Canada, the US would have invaded the next day. Why do I assume this? Because the US was willing to start a nuclear war over soviet bases on Cuba. And to this day inhumanely sanctions cuba and sabotages the country. The end of the Cuban missle crisis was celebrated by the USA with its sponsored terrorists blowing up a cuban factory, killing 200 people.
Russia: Accepted the expansion of NATO despite promises to the opposite by the USA. Did not intervene in the brutal military actions of Urkaine against Donbas for 8 years, despite being asked to by Donbas and all opposition parties in Russia. Putin had to fucking apologize for not intervening far sooner.
Some of us do not have the memory of a goldfish and actually followed the development of the situations for years. Maybe fucking listen for once. Reality is the exact opposite of what you believe it is.
Imagine someone coming from a presumably NATO European country saying this. There's no other words to say to you- until you can recognize not only your glaring hypocrisy, but that your countries are the cause of this war and most across the world, you're a lost cause.
maybe stop poking the bear? Actions have consequences you know
You peoples must be allergic to geopolitics or something.
Jesus Christ how do liberals even manage to crawl their way here...
Here we go again.
They had fucking Neo-nazis right at their doorstep shelling the Eastern portion of their country (who's comprised of mostly Ethnic Russians) and a terrorist geopolitical group (NATO) was arming them. This whole conflict was fabricated by the West and the Ukronazi regime that took power back in 2014 with Western influence to destabilize and further weaken Russia because, guess what, Imperialists loved Russia in the 90s and due to the nature of the parasitic system that is Capitalism, they need Russia to become a subservient state.
Overall this whole war that started in 2014 btw had 3 objectives (imo):
Also, a few days ago I posted another comment (probably more detailed than this one) answering this exact question (not even a question, just bad faith):
First things first, based on what you just said about the Ukrainian war, do you support the invasion of Iraq for the explicit purpose of regime change (getting rid of Saddam Hussein) (not the bullcrap about weapons of mass destruction).
Regarding the referendum,there were calls for boycotting the elections from people who wanted to remain united (in a way, a bit akin to the referendum of Catalonia in 2017). Thirdly, it still remains extremely suspicious that a new country that allegedly wishes to get international legitimacy would not try to get any international observers, from any country, not even from the "Global South", China, none at all.
Regarding the Minsk agreements, it appears that there were several violations from both parties, from both sides not committing to the ceasefire for several days, the Ukranians failing to approve the constitutional amendment as mandated per the Minsk agreements, and the failure from both the LPR and DPR to organise the local elections. And I would guess that Russian intervention should be limited to either sanctions or limited intervention in the Donbass region, not a whole invasion of Ukraine.
When it comes to NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, it is absolutely shameful to violate such an agreement, and there is plenty of documented proof regarding it, even if it was just a verbal agreement. But it is not exactly like the Eastern countries were forced to join NATO.
Finally, who the hell brought Palestine into this, this whataboutism is at the level of Republicans.
I was about to reply to this after a busy day, but it seems other comrades have already done it. Also the Palestine thing was because I literally copied my comment from a few weeks ago.
Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with "national security" (what else is a military for after all)
Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens "national security" more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.
Ofc I realize you didn't justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn't practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced...
Your reply was much better than mine could ever be, thanks comrade.
Also yeah, it was a pretty bold move to ask if I'd support the invasion of Iraq, since, just like you pointed out, the circumstances were completely different. Russia invaded Ukraine after warning them (and the West) countless times and it's in no way a war for Imperialism (or that benefits it). As for the invasion of Iraq, it was the complete opposite: An invasion under no threats for the sake of exporting the empire's Capital.
Whataboutism: OK when libs do it, dishonest as all hell for anyone else!
"Whataboutism" is an utterly nonsensical concept in international relations. Not only is it reasonable to compare like situations and expect similar opinions on similar issues, but that exact analysis is one of the principle sources of (what passes for) international law. If I say something is good when my country does it but bad when another country does it, I'm not trying to uphold any rules, I'm just cheerleading my country, why should I be taken seriously?
It's fine to be skeptical of referendums, but that does not extend to the western line of "obviously these were sham votes." A vote is not a sham simply because it happened in a country you don't like; you need some actual evidence.
Russia tried the diplomatic route for most of a decade. It didn't work, and as Angela Merkel admitted after the war started, it didn't work in large part becsuse the west never intended to hold Ukraine to it.
A limited intervention is how this started, too -- Russia and Ukraine had a ceasefire negotiated something like a month or two into this, but Boris Johnson and the west spiked it. Russia also appears to be content to sit in the pro-Russia eastern regions and slowly grind away at Ukraine's ability to fight. They're not making some all-out push to Kiev.
Yeah this person was never going to listen lmfao smug libs are the absolute worst