• MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is that what you call invading a sovereign country?

      It’s not even like this is the first time Putin has invaded another sovereign country,

      Ukraine isn’t a sovereign country and hasn’t been since the US couped their democratically elected leader. You can’t be a sovereign country if a foreign country has veto power over your elections.

        • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s say you’re right (which has problems of its own I’ll address later) and that Ukraines’s democracy has been subverted by USA, that doesn’t make a military invasion and armed occupancy a righteous or even justifiable act.

          This makes no sense, first you stake your position against the invasion because “Ukraine is a sovereign country” and then you turn around and say it doesn’t matter that it’s not sovereign. Pick one and stick to it.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is just elevated whataboutism

          The condition of the Ukrainian state is literally the crux of the entire conflict since 2014, what are you on about?

          and that Ukraines’s democracy has been subverted by USA, that doesn’t make a military invasion and armed occupancy a righteous or even justifiable act.

          It does when that subverted state begins to suppress ethnic minorities and political opposition, your argument rests on willful ignorance of the conflict and the Ukrainian state’s actions in Donbass and the genocidal threats it regularly issues to Crimeans who DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER considered themselves Ukrainian

          Sorry bud, but intervening in a vicious civil war brought about by the violent overthrow of an actual democratically elected government, is not the same thing as unprovoked aggression for the sake of land grabs as claimed by historically brain-dead liberals

          Why doesn’t Putin just say that? Why would he insist on mislabelling this as an “SMO” instead of a war of liberation?

          SMO is just a technical political title for the operation, Putin’s rhetoric concerning Crimea and the separatist states has been quite clearly centered on unification, independence referendums and international recognition for their secession from Ukraine

          Are you asserting in the whole two years of this war Putin has never mentioned the separatist republics???

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is just elevated whataboutism

          I’m not sure how correcting the term that you repeatedly used is “whataboutism”. Surely you meant something when you wrote “sovereign country” multiple times? It’s just inaccurate, it would be like referring to the US as a kingdom or referring to Washington D.C. as a country.

          Why doesn’t Putin just say that? Why would he insist on mislabelling this as an “SMO” instead of a war of liberation?

          Modern countries don’t like to call their wars a war for some reason. The “Special Military Operation” labeling in particular is based Ukraine labeling their war against the Donbas Republics as an “Anti-Terrorist Operation”. Russia did state that one of their goals was the liberation of the Donbas Republics.

          https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-first-phase-ukraine-operation-mostly-complete-focus-now-donbass-2022-03-25/

          And why wouldn’t Russia use the same means to subvert their subversion instead of resorting to bombing civilians?

          Russia is far worse at subverting countries than the US is. The US has massive experience in fomenting color revolutions in foreign countries, using NGOs to undermine foreign governments, and in supporting far-right movements within countries and using them to topple or put pressure on those hostile (to the US) governments. Russia did attempt to use diplomacy (for eight years) to stop Ukraine’s bombing of civilians in Donbas but that didn’t work out. Russia tried one last resort by diplomatically recognizing the Donbas Republics but that just caused Ukraine to start shelling the Donbas even harder.

          Don’t tell me…the verified evidence of countless war crimes are just propaganda right? For which you’re going to offer no counter evidence.

          All war is a crime and all wars come with war crimes. Some war crimes were committed by Russia, some were committed by Ukraine and then blamed on Russia, and some were pure atrocity propaganda that was just made up. The made up atrocity propaganda was so bad that the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) had to fire their commissioner for human rights. She was just spreading made-up atrocity propaganda and also wasn’t bothering to organize the evacuation of civilians.

          https://www.newsweek.com/lyudmila-denisova-ukraine-commissioner-human-rights-removed-russian-sexual-assault-claims-1711680

          As for the accuracy of your accusation - do you have some sources? I’m interested to read and learn about your viewpoint. Assuming that it’s not just your armchair intelligence briefing.

          Here’s an overview. Click the links to get details about the parts you’re interested in.

          https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/2014-coup-ukraine

          The short version is that the National Endowment for Democracy (a CIA cut-out) has openly spent over $5 Billion dollars to “promote democracy” in Ukraine. Do you remember how much the US freaked out over Prigozhin (Wagner guy) spending a hundred thousand dollars in order to “promote democracy” in the US? John McCain and Victoria Nuland openly met with the protestors and announced their full support and the backing of the US. Nuland had a leaked phone call where she was hand-selecting the new leader of Ukraine. The new Ukrainian Finance Minister become a Ukrainian citizen the very same day she was sworn in as Finance Minister.

          As a bonus. Here’s one of the guys that McCain met with.

          Tyahnybok himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in 2004 after giving a speech demanding that Ukrainians fight against a “Muscovite-Jewish mafia” (he later clarified this by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and was only against to “a group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]”). In 2005 he wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry,” and, even now, Svoboda openly calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto their passports.

          Tyahnybok is a prominent leader in the Ukrainian protests, so perhaps it was only right that McCain met with him as he did with the others (we reached out to McCain’s office to find out how much he interacted with Tyahnybok, but have not heard back at the time of writing). You can defintely understand, however, why Jewish leaders in Ukraine and abroad are concerned about him.

          https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-meets-oleh-tyahnybok-in-ukraine-2013-12

          • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Whatabout region of France

            It’s actually from Northern Ireland! Everybody thinks the phrase came from the US during the cold war but it didn’t.

            According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer,[13] the term originated in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Zimmer cites a 1974 letter by history teacher Sean O’Conaill which was published in The Irish Times where he complained about “the Whatabouts”, people who defended the IRA by pointing out supposed wrongdoings of their enemy:

            Their enemy in this case is the Black and Tans and the British Army and their supposed wrongdoings are the reprisal killings they committed against Irish civilians.

        • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you ever notice these Russian invasions of “sovereign” countries always occurs right on their borders and in the places where NATO is planning to establish a presence? I wonder if this had anything to do with safeguarding Russian sovereignty? I guess we’ll never know. If only there was a historical record of what NATO did to Russia (and Ukraine) in the late 80s and the 90s.

          Or you could just show us your dick.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because Hitler also only wanted peace

      Nice try Ruzzian shill, but we true defenders of liberal democracy know that Nazis are the good guys now, and RUSSIA is like the Nazis, who weren’t so bad really because they were fighting Russia, who is like the damn Nazis, who actually weren’t so bad bec

      • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        2022 was probably too late to agree to follow the Minsk agreements. If Ukraine wanted to do that it should have done so during the preceding eight years. At that point Russia was correct to push for disarmament and and maybe a DMZ.

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      The west appears to have exactly the same policy they have had the entire time also - and that is: leave the sovereign territory of the other nation, and there will be peace.

      And when Russia points out its really conspicuous how this is a standard only ever applied to them?

      Russia says its their territory, Ukraine says its there’s. At this point there are literally only three options.

      1. Recognize Russia claim, cede the land, end the war and ukraine can go forward with the territory they have now. (Maybe they can even think about allowing opposition political parties and elections at some point.)

      2. Don’t recognize Russia claim, keep doing whatbwere doing and, as the west loves to say “fight to the last ukrainian”. Then there will be nobody left in Ukraine and Russia can take all of it (or Ukraine like, takes off weights and reveals it actually has more capacity to fight then they’ve been letting on for the whole counter offensive)

      3. Other countries back Ukraines claim and get directly involved in fighting Russia in a hot war, putin, Xi, and Biden grt to fight over the nuclear ashes.

      Which of those would you prefer, because the solution I keep seeing from liberals “Russia decides to stop for no apparent reason, gives up goes home and gives all the land back” is not actually a realistic or even feasible outcome.

      So I really want to know, which of the three real world options would you prefer, and again “I wave a magic wand and Russia gives up and goes home” is not one of them.

      • el_abuelo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        More whataboutism. You can’t use one atrocity to justify another, otherwise you’re justifying them all. That would be atrocious.

        Why have you ruled out 1 option yet didn’t rule out Ukraine doing exactly what you’re saying Russia can’t do? Seems like you’ve been brainwashed.

        I dont know what the answer is; but I do know that a million dead Russians and Ukrainians is an awful thing. I also know that Russia started the military action and could at any time return to its own territory and stop the dying. If Russia suddenly has some legitimate territorial claim then it should settle it through diplomacy, not with the blood of millions.

        I also think it’s up to Ukraine to choose what it does, and everyone should support that decision. Currently only the west seems to support it…and because Russia hasn’t had its way its throwing its toys out the pram and trying to settle it with the blood of millions of innocents.

        • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because you made up a new word for hypocrisyndoesnt mean you’re not being a hypocrite.

          Love that liberals somehow convinced themselves that by saying “you pointing out my hypocrisy absolved me” works on anybody but them.

          I dont know what the answer is;

          Yea we know, that’s kind of the entire point of our argument is that you don’t have any solutions other than literally Russia gets bored and goes home for absolutely no reason. It’s also why we keep saying you aren’t serious people who are even dealing with the realities of the situation.

          but I do know that a million dead Russians and Ukrainians is an awful thing.

          No you clearly don’t because you get super pissed whenever somebody suggest you stop sending people to die for no reason.

          I also know that Russia started the military action and could at any time return to its own territory and stop the dying

          So literally right back to magically thinking again.

          I know that if a super hot movie star started dating me that would be the end of my “not having a famous celebrity girlfriend” problem.

          But the same question applies to both scenarios, why in a million years would that ever possibly happen.

          So, once again, after trying to have a discussion about the actual realites of the situation liberals go with ignoring reality, saying it’s bad when Russia does it but you can’t point out we do it all the time, and the solution is for Russia to just give up on a war they’re winning and cede territory they say is there’s for LITERALLY NO REASON OTHER THAN MAKING DUMBSHIT HYPOCRITICAL LIBERALS MORE SMUG. A goal every ukraine flag emoji account I’ve ever seen is willing to sacrifice every single ukranina life to accomplish.

          • el_abuelo
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            hypocrisyndoesnt

            Speaking of new words.

            Whataboutism isn’t absolution and I have nothing to be absolved of. I don’t defend war mongering on behalf of any country. Unlike the replies in this thread.

            Being against the Russian invasion of a sovereign nation does not make me a Liberal, I’m sorry that doesn’t align with your narrative.

            you get super pissed whenever somebody suggest you stop sending people to die for no reason

            What’s wrong with you? What makes you think I’ve sent anyone to die? For any reason? And got pissed about it?? Do you think I’m the Ukrainian president or something?

            Russia gets bored and goes home for absolutely no reason

            Yet another example of making shit up to fit your narrative. You could equally frame it as “Russia realises that invading another country is wrong and withdraws”. Both as equally as unlikely as any of your suggestions. In all liklihood there will be some other solution that allows the main parties to save face and hopefully stops the killing. I’m sure you want people to stop dying too.

            As for your last paragraph of barely cohesive babble - none of that is remotely accurate. I’m not a Liberal, I’m not as naive as some people to think I can suggest or predict a solution, I don’t think you “can’t” point out atrocities by the west - I’m just saying “but they did it first” is a shit reason to kill 1m people.

            And why on earth would I need to choose one of your solutions to this monstrous invasion? My viewpoint is that the imperialists should go back to their own country and stop butchering civilians. I don’t give a shit why they do it. I’d rather we got there yesterday and less people died…but if the only way to stop the aggressive and unjustified invasion is to drive them back militarily then I guess that’s what has to be done. Because your options are shit.

            • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lmao ohh no one slight and obvious typo totally invalidates what I said.

              I’m done reading these page long works of fiction. You need to chose one of my options because those are the only ones that there is a greater than 0% chance of happening.

              Or you can keep screaming “Russia should abandon a two year long military campaign now that they’re winning to appease whiny liberals”

              As usual we’ll be over here continuing to say “hey look it’s exactly what we said was going to happen” while you tell us we don’t know what we’re talking about.

            • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              but if the only way to stop the aggressive and unjustified invasion is to drive them back militarily then I guess that’s what has to be done.

              So what you’re saying is that you are a war mongering donkey brained lib but you’re slightly embarrassed about it? Really you should be more embarrassed, you’re pathetic

              Good luck with that loser, your little nazi pals have already lost

              This you bro?