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):
Deindustrialize Europe: Make them more dependent from the US [success]
Isolate and weaken Russia [FAILED]
Turn Ukrainians against Russians and increase US influence across Europe [success]
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):
It’s a completely different situation. Ever since 2014, after the western-backed Euromaidan protests, Ukronazis (bunch of nazi battalions that have permission from the government to run wild) have been shelling Eastern Ukraine, killing MANY innocent civilians in the process. What Ukraine did (and is still doing to this day) can be considered genocide, since it systematically targets Eastern Ukrainians, who mostly speak Russian and tend to identify more with Russia.
Crimea held a referendum back in 2014 and most Crimean citizens voted to join Russia and the same also happened in the DPR and LPR in 2022. Guess what? The west’s excuse is that both referendums were rigged (they weren’t).
Oh, and remember how NATO broke their promise of not expanding eastward after the dissolution of the Socialist Bloc? Do you also remember how Ukraine constantly broke the Minsk agreements and how many times Russia tried to warn the west and Ukraine?
By all means, this war is tragic and my heart goes to innocents who lost their lives, but it was predicted by many a long time ago.
Palestine was occupied by a settler-colonial state called Israel, the only democracy (aka US puppet regime) in the Middle East, that has slaughtered countless people and is now waging genocide against the Palestinians. It’s an ethnostate with policies that make it possible to dub it the modern Nazi Germany.
The situations are completely different. You’re looking at things from an idealistic point of view.
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.
who the hell brought Palestine into this, this whataboutism is at the level of Republicans
do you support the invasion of Iraq for the explicit purpose of regime change
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?
Regarding the referendum
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.
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.
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.
Just to be clear:
You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound.
If @xkyfal18 justifies the invasion of Ukraine but does not justify the invasion of Iraq that is a consistent position, your trying to isolate the regime change aspect amongst all justifications is a fallacy typical for the metaphysical thinking of a liberal. By adding that constraint you’re ridiculing your own question
Also nearly everybody would support regime-changing hitler, does that mean everybody supported the invasion of Iraq bc they support regime change in one instance? Ofc not. I hope even you can see the idiocy of that argument.
Now back to the premise:
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both invasions are ultimately justified with “national security” (the purpose of a military after all)
Well one (the invasion of Ukraine) 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 (the invasion of Iraq) 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 monstrous
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 atomize and isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant comparisons, as evidenced…
You will probably not take it as honest advice atp, but I mean it: Liberalism implicitly teaches us Metaphysics and it sucks hard. It does not give us the tools for a proper analysis, it gives only an approximation of reality that is practical when its error is tolerable, but it is often not. looking into dialectics is imperative.
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.
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.
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):
Lol, this commie propaganda is so tiring and so low quality. Gray one might say, like gray mud on the outskirts of Moscow.
I want premium western propaganda (made in china), with gold plated sneakers and flying banners carried by diesel jetpacks.
tldr: mother chinorusia good, usanato bad.
P.S.: I was always fascinated with islam+communist combo. Did the prophet (blessed be his mame) own the camels of production?
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.
Yeah this person was never going to listen lmfao smug libs are the absolute worst
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.
Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound.
If @xkyfal18 justifies the invasion of Ukraine but does not justify the invasion of Iraq that is a consistent position, your trying to isolate the regime change aspect amongst all justifications is a fallacy typical for the metaphysical thinking of a liberal. By adding that constraint you’re ridiculing your own question
Also nearly everybody would support regime-changing hitler, does that mean everybody supported the invasion of Iraq bc they support regime change in one instance? Ofc not. I hope even you can see the idiocy of that argument.
Now back to the premise: Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both invasions are ultimately justified with “national security” (the purpose of a military after all)
Well one (the invasion of Ukraine) 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 (the invasion of Iraq) 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 monstrous
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 atomize and isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant comparisons, as evidenced…
You will probably not take it as honest advice atp, but I mean it: Liberalism implicitly teaches us Metaphysics and it sucks hard. It does not give us the tools for a proper analysis, it gives only an approximation of reality that is practical when its error is tolerable, but it is often not. looking into dialectics is imperative.
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.
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.