“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.

  • BrooklynManOP
    link
    English
    711 months ago

    that’s some impressive mental gymnastics for supporting an illegal invasion and nothing you said changes that. if these people don’t like living in Ukraine, they can leave. That doesn’t excuse Russia for invading another sovereign nation, and Ukraine has every right to defend itself.

    it reminds me of this:

    “DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”

    • Tretiak
      link
      English
      0
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Removed by mod

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      link
      English
      -411 months ago

      The only people doing mental gymnastics here are the ones who genuinely believe that the west is helping Ukraine defend itself as opposed to destroying Ukraine in a proxy war with Russia. You are all going to have a lot of soul searching to do at the end of all this.

      • BrooklynManOP
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        “i know you are but what am I?” is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.

        believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          English
          -211 months ago

          The west is not helping Ukraine, and the fact that people in the west continue to pretend that’s the case if absolutely sickening. And you’ve demonstrated beyond all doubt that you are far more foolish than me.

          • BrooklynManOP
            link
            English
            411 months ago

            The west is not helping Ukraine

            so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it’s pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.

            so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              English
              511 months ago

              The west is helping exactly the same way the west helped Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and countless other countries that were destroyed as a result of western interventions. One has to have a brain as smooth as a bowling ball to think that west gets involved in these conflicts due to some altruistic purposes.

              Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of making a clown of yourself in public. It’s frankly embarrassing.

              • BrooklynManOP
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                except it’s not-- each of those instances are very different, as is this. You can’t even accuse any one nation and have to use the nebulous “the west” because your argument isn’t even political, it’s ideological-- you just hate that anyone is opposing Russia’s imperialism, and you’re blaming the victim, using every logical fallacy, including personal insult, you can since you have no rational argument to make.

                your position is transparent, angry, and you have nothing but nonsense to spew in defense of bullying and disinformation.

                edit:

                Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

                The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  English
                  211 months ago

                  The motivations of the west were exactly the same in each of those instances, and one has to work really hard to not understand what these motivations actually are.

                  Also, please stop projecting. The only one here who’s angry and spewing nonsense here is you. I’ve provided actual sources and detailed explanations for my position. All you’ve done was regurgitate propaganda drivel.

                  Also, whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by pseudo intellectuals to create a double standard for their own actions and those of others. Can’t wait to see what you’re going to spew here next.

                  • BrooklynManOP
                    link
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    The motivations of the west were exactly the same in each of those instances, and one has to work really hard to not understand what these motivations actually are.

                    Just because others don’t agree with your imaginings (and laughably ignorant assessment) doesn’t mean we have to work hard. Acknowledging reality, in fact, requires very little “work”.

                    Also, please stop projecting. The only one here who’s angry and spewing nonsense here is you.

                    Criticizing you isn’t “protection” nor is pointing out the obviousness of your biases. and I already pointed out how childish the whole “I know you are but what I am?” thing is, but if you want to keep up with that, that’s on you.

                    I’ve provided actual sources and detailed explanations for my position. All you’ve done was regurgitate propaganda drivel.

                    posting a bunch of pictures of where ethnic Russians live doesn’t magically make an illegal invasion legal. THAT is, as you say “propaganda drivel”, but that’s for playing, lmao

                    Also, whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by pseudo intellectuals to create a double standard for their own actions and those of others

                    well, at least you admit what you’ve done wrong. but will you stop? i doubt you’ll do more that try to blame me for your actions while claiming to be a victim…

              • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                011 months ago

                Who said anything about altruism? All sides are motivated by self interest. Ukrainians want to kill Russian soldiers on their soil, and the US wants other people to kill Russian soldiers on foreign soil.

                They cooperate because their interests align, even if Ukrainians have a more justified motivation.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  English
                  311 months ago

                  Ah, so you’re finally admitting that what we’re seeing is a proxy war between the regime US installed in Ukraine after a coup in 2014 and Russia. We’re finally getting somewhere.

      • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        Wow, your maps are so persuasive!

        I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.

        I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
          link
          English
          011 months ago

          If people in Kosovo actually want to join Albania then they should be able to. Last I checked though, there are plenty of Serbs living there who recently clashed with NATO troops. You want to remind me why that happened?

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
              link
              English
              411 months ago

              Wait, but I thought you were just telling me that people in Kosovo wanted to join Albania. Can’t even keep your story straight? 🤡

              • @FlowVoid@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -111 months ago

                No, I said Albanians in Kosovo are like Russians in Ukraine. Neither is 100% homogeneous, but that doesn’t give anyone a right to annex their land.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  English
                  411 months ago

                  Yet, NATO went in and broke up Yugoslavia and that’s the established international norm now.

                  • BrooklynManOP
                    link
                    English
                    -411 months ago

                    Whataboutism

                    Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

                    The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).