• Match!!@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    China (but not Russia) does make arguments as to why their political and economic systems are superior pretty regularly

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Because nato and the UN are the first sign internationally cooperation, but people want to shit on it because they don’t have a good argument of why the structure doesn’t work, so instead of creating a good argument about the current structure, they just shit on it and say “NATO BAD”.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      There is a reason why it is obvious to some people why NATO and the UN are bad and not to others. There are obvious good reasons to hate those organizations if you are the kind of person or nation who wants to do horrible things to other people or nations for your own benefit.

      • EABOD25@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m not saying any of those people are wrong or right. What I’m saying is is people put forth the energy to criticize those organizations and countries involved without coming up with solutions to improve said organizations. Instead people just say that those orgs are evil or bad. Both organizations are international coops, so how is that a bad thing? It shows a great chance, but instead of trying to find solutions, they want to chastise it.

        So with that being said, what would be your solution to improve NATO and the UN?

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          Both organizations are international coops, so how is that a bad thing?

          What I am saying is that that is a bad thing if you are the bully everyone else is cooperating to protect themselves from.

        • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 days ago

          Legit multipolarization?

          NATO, in particular, is highly coupled to the American/anti-Russian agenda. How much chance did Europe get to discuss the pros and cons of bankrolling a long-term conflict in Ukraine vs getting railroaded into it with the insinuations of being the next Chamberlain?

          Even Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don’t wake up every morning asking “how can I be evil today?” They may have a different agenda than the West, but it still comes from a place of caring for their country, legacy, and position. These are not wholesale foreign concepts. They can be understood and worked with. But I suspect the sort of organizations that would get the best out of them would require certain countries to acknowledge their place among equals and be willing to comptomise their sphere of influence.

          • EABOD25@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Then do something about the problem! For fuck’s sake. If you see a problem and choose not to do anything about the problem beside complain about the problem, then you’re part of the problem.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    I understand the Taiwan argument, I don’t understand Ukraine, how does everyone joining NATO help Russia/China in any capacity? By that logic, they should attack Switzerland or the Cayman Islands and piss off most of the billionaires in the world who hide their assets there…

    The purpose behind attacking Ukraine was to prevent them from joining NATO, and that kind of relied on a quick resolution to the war before other countries have a chance to join. The goal was to get in and get out with a treaty that formally recognizes Russia’s control over Crimea and promises to not join NATO.

    • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      You mean the war that is not a war, and the attack that Putin said he wasn’t going to perform until he did, leaving even Putindrones running confused for an excuse because Putin’s cancer was acting up making him panic and rush so even they didn’t know? How’s Prighozin, by the way?

    • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s not what Putin said in the first week of March 2022, he said they were sending a special operation to protect ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and to de-nazify Ukraine. Those were his words. Not Putin’s fault the FSB couldn’t find any Nazis for the livestreams, right? Must be tough to be him, when his own words were streamed around the world and can’t be erased. Is bombing maternity hospitals part of his strategy to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Strangely, crushing women and children to death using glide bomb attacks on apartment buildings has not been persuasive.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        I don’t really believe anything Putin says, I believe what he does. I think “protecting ethnic Russians” was an excuse to achieve his main goal, which was to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, and to resolve the dispute around Crimea.

        I think he wanted a quick war, but Ukraine didn’t play ball and now he needs to save face to stay in power. So he desperately needs a win here, so he’s pivoting to Russian nationalism to stay in power because it’s becoming pretty clear that this war is going to drag on.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          You’re saying two different things. Him attacking Ukraine is him doing something but the only way you could read the motivation as something done to stop Ukraine joining NATO is either basing it off of what someone in the regime said (hypocritical) or projecting what you want onto the situation to square a pre-conceived narrative in your head.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            There seems to have been a set of informal assurances between the US/NATO and the USSR that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward past Germany, though there were no legally binding agreements. Russia objected when NATO expanded in the 90s, and it continued objecting as more and more countries joined NATO. This isn’t new, it’s a clearly established pattern.

            So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit, at least from the Russian perspective. If he allows NATO to continue expanding, the Russian people would justifiably be pretty upset, so he essentially is forced to take some kind of action to show that Russia has certain lines in the sand. If he lets Ukraine, their next-door neighbor, join NATO, who would trust that he actually has any kind of power to protect Russian interests? So it makes complete sense that Putin decided to invade Ukraine for the primary purpose of preserving a line of buffer states, as well as legally justify the taking of Crimea. That sends a message to other border states that Russia will not stand by while it’s regional influence is further eroded.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying he was justified in attacking Ukraine, I’m merely saying he was obligated to demonstrate a show of force to retain his position of power. If he was able to get a peace agreement from Ukraine to not join NATO and to formally recognize Russian control of Crimea, I think he would’ve withdrawn. That didn’t happen, so now he’s between a rock and a hard place and needs to get significant concessions from Ukraine to retain his power in Russia.

            • Donkter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              I don’t really believe anything Putin says, I believe what he does

              So when we get to Putin, I think his argument that NATO is being too aggressive has merit…

              I think you’re picking when to listen to Putin to support your preconceived notion that NATO started it.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                I’m looking at the history between Russia/USSR and USA/NATO and trying to see things from their perspective. I’m not saying their perspective is correct (NATO is only obligated to actual, legal contracts), just explaining how Russians see things to understand why they think they were justified in instigating a conflict.

                Once you understand why your enemy is doing certain things, you can more carefully craft a peace deal that’s mutually beneficial.

        • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          I’m saying that what Putin DOES is send resources to eradicate Ukraine as a nation. You’re right that the excuses keep changing. It was never really about preventing NATO membership for him. It’s about seizing and destroying.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            Idk, if he completely absorbs Ukraine, that puts him right next door to a very angry NATO. I really don’t think he wants that, he wants a buffer, and he wants Europe to get over what he’s done in Ukraine. I think he now sees that ship has sailed, and he can’t really back down due to local political pressure, so he has to keep going.

      • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        the FSB couldn’t find any Nazis for the livestreams

        Brother, there isn’t a single picture of a single Ukranian military unit taken in the past ten years where somebody isn’t wearing a fascist symbol of some kind. The reason the SMU stretched on is much more material - the Russian leadership greatly overestimated their military’s capabilities.