Removed by mod
Nah, Hexbear is cheering the genocide on. They’re mask-off at this point.
Look at lemmy.ml and they’re on the verge of calling zelensky himself a nazi.
Accusing a Jew of being a nazi. I don’t even know what to say…
To be fair, it wouldn’t be unprecedented .
Not really on the verge, many of them have been justifying the invasion because of neozasim in Ukraine, which is indeed a problem, but Russian born Putinesque neofascism is probably not the cure for it.
Just so you understand, there has never even been neo-Nazism in Ukraine. And there was no “problem”; this problem was artificially spread by Russia.
What do you think about that ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade#Neo-Nazism
These guys rose in popularity because they fought against Russian-backed rebel groups better, so in a sense previous comment is right
I don’t understand how the fact that those neo-Nazis gained popularity in the current war, makes the previous comment, that negates the existence of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, correct.
If your enemy is a Jew and you hate Jews just call them self hating! Easy!
Weird that that’s getting downvotes. Especially when that’s the official Russian position.
It’s not only the official position of Russia, it’s the standard operating procedure for all kinds of people.
And they ban you for Calli it a genocide.
HEY, don’t forget lemmygrad!
Always ridiculous takes from lemmygrad users. I see a lot from kbin as well, but I’m assuming selection bias or something
I’m pretty sure they would say that ukraine shouldn’t exsist anyway because the US propaganda is taking over them or whatever.
deleted by creator
“Euromaidan was a coup” they seriously claim, and add a quote from Mersheimer.
Did they not force the president at the time to resign? It’d be like Jan 6th forcing Biden to not take office. I’m genuinely interested to know what the difference is. It can be considered just, but it doesn’t seem inaccurate to call it a coup. Please educate me.
It’d be like Jan 6th forcing Biden to not take office.
Not quite, because only a very small minority of americans wanted this to happen. In Ukraine, the forces against Yanukovich’s rule were democratic in nature, and were backed by massive protests that Yanukovich tried to suppress violently. I would call it a revolution.
Ah, so it was a democratic coup. I see.
Yes, a revolution. That’s not at all what tankies are implying when they claim it’s a coup, and I’m sure you know it.
I don’t understand, are the people on these servers kremlin bots or are they really that stupid?
I think they are just trolls. Hexbear has a community called “The Dunk Tank” where they proudly announce when they successfully “dunked” on someone, also known as arguing in bad faith with prejudicial hostility and no will to listen until the other side gives up and leaves. They mark that as a win in their book and applaud to it.
It’s like they’re completely new to the internet. Who does this anymore?
deleted by creator
They make it thier whole identity
lemee speedrunning defederation
Ohmygod one person said something about me. Quick defed from the entire instance!!
Nah it’s been nearly constantly and consistently bad quality posts and toxicity from that instance.
If you think the reputation doesn’t apply to you, personally, then it’s trivial to move to a different Lemmy server. It’s not some immutable characteristic of your being.
I registered on this server 2 years ago and I should move to another server because some people think that this server is for people who support Russia? It’s bullshit. It was a leftist server some time ago, but now it’s a general purpose server. Also leftists != support Russia.
Anyway, we shouldn’t go in comments and say that people from X are jerks.
deleted by creator
Thinking about someone means they’ve got ya!
deleted by creator
Blame yourself, that’s the implication of your comment.
The lack of self awareness…
What the hell did you mean by “rent free” if it wasn’t “the dumbest thing you’ll read all day”?
Appeasement will only strengthen Russia.
Nope. It will only sttengthen Putin.
I am glad to announce you guys that number of tankies here is below 4% according to up/downvotes
It’s low enough to know them by their usernames and shame them every time they post something
As long as they’re genuine and civil about their opinions, I encourage a space for that discussion. If it’s disingenuous trolling or crude propaganda then it becomes a problem.
The general public framing of the war and Russian “denazification” messaging has basically broke criticism of the situation in the mainstream. It’s even to the point where you can support Ukrainian people and clearly identify Russia as the aggressor, but if you rationalize how this war didn’t come out of nowhere people’s alarm bells go up, and immediately you are scrutinized whether you’re a Russian troll or not. (There is no measure of sincerity online.)
The shocking thing for me is how quickly people revel in violence the second there’s a moral justification for it. Like you see closeups of injured Russians getting grenades dropped on them and see their bodies exploding, and it’s almost treated as a moral duty to view this as entertainment, consuming it on the same social media feeds you would memes and friend’s family photos.
I am, sadly, guilty of the last part, but to my defence I followed the beginning of this war almost religiously and the brutality the russian soldiers was beyond horrific.
They had absolutely zero regard for human life in any form or way.I’ve also heard countless recordings of phone calls between soldiers and families back in Russia and while not all are equally bad, many were sould wrenching to listen to.
I can’t excuse cheering for the loss of life, even when brainwashed, but I did and felt comfort knowing that there was one invader leas to wreck havock upon the Ukranian population.
I would reckon many were in the same boat as myself.
The issue is outside of any “true” morality, if you were in Russia chances are you’d be doing the exact same for the other side, since moral justifications for violence can be constructed and consented to on behalf of the public through many methods. Retribution violence is propagandized heavily in the US, in media and civic life. Some people gleefully imagine themselves inflicting violence with their firearm of choice if only provided with the right circumstance. So all this becomes a matter of dividing people by who is morally granted to inflict the violence they’ve been conditioned to view as justified, perpetuating the cycle. Viewing history as a river of blood and ignoring the banks of the river where people live their lives.
I followed this war for first 2 months only, i am neither on Russian or Ukrainian side.
I am in country which doesn’t belong to American or Russian side. Except “the world” (NATO+2 other boot kissers) every other nation citizen knows that this war started due to bullying faced by a nation constantly being surrounded by weapons of “the world” nations. It didn’t come out of no where, ukarine became the victim. Other than “the world” countries nobody believes Ukraine stance to continue is any form of stand against evil, everybody knows what Americans and NATO did to middle eastern people, they carpet bombed entire villages couple days after 9/11 and everybody enjoyed that horror show while drinking beers in pubs and eating crisps, and we were supposed to believe all those murdered by carpet bombing were terrorists; all non-“the world” countries know what is happening. Before internet bullies jump on me, I am also not from middle east.
Initially it was clear in first 2 weeks that Russian soldiers were very well behaved and didn’t touch any civilian, Russian troops were bullied and harassed by local civilians, stones were thrown at them on video and no retaliation was caught on any camera whatsoever. One can argue whether those Russian soldiers should be there or not, but they were there already, can’t change it. Memes were being made that Russian soldiers are weak girls who can’t do anything, their non-aggressive stance was seen as weakness
Later came American and NATO donated ordinance, which turned invasion into bloody unnecessary war.
Now as a third party national with no interest in who wins the “trophy”, I find it shameful that Internet warriors are saying things like Ukraine is winning or Russia is winning. Internet is full of bull… Ukraine which was once very beautiful country with wonderful free of cost education for all/foreigners is an absolute ruin, they are winning nothing, no matters what the outcome is.
No matters how much I respect bravery of Ukrainians, It clearly is a war being fought for American ego, and victim is every Ukraine resident, no matters how much nationalist pride they try to show online or offline for anyone’s “bravery”, Ukraine has advanced backwards towards history; whatever the result Ukraine has lost big time, the longer war goes, the more they lose.
Please stop this non-sense war, nobody is giving you weapons because they believe you are fighting for freedom, if you believed in freedom, you would join NAM movement like the non-“the world” countries.
deleted by creator
If it’s disingenuous trolling or crude propaganda then it becomes a problem.
That’s what tankies do almost by definition. You’re talking about the rare breed of communists who aren’t tankies.
It’s not rare. There are just a lot of loud, terminally online people on Lemmy.
At this point, there is very little room for a discussion that hasn’t already been settled though. Anyone who doesn’t see Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the complete aggressor is already a fool (who if they haven’t understood by now, will they ever?) or a troll.
I don’t think the issue for criticism is whether they’re a victim of Russia’s aggression, they were clearly invaded. The issue is why they, as a victim in this context, benefit from the full weight of western support, whereas other victims are basically ignored, or even explained away as something expected and “unfortunate.” If you sincerely support Ukrainian people you have to realize they are not being supported by the west simply because they are good deserving people, else we’d have sent weapons to many other groups in even more dire situations, the names of which aren’t even in our public conscious. If you truly support victimized people you have to go far beyond the messaging from western governments, and it will extend far beyond borders and national/religious identities. Just look at the way Kurds were symbolized in the war against ISIS, and what eventually happened there. People had the Kurdish flag on their social media profiles, they were the moderate independent democratic state in the midst of extremists, then they were no longer a useful political tool in this context.
The reason propaganda has been so successful in this war, is that any criticism of the western powers is taken as criticism of people in Ukraine and akin to support of Russia. Even though, as we we’ve seen time and time again, these institutions change their tune and we can expect western Ukrainian regions to at some point becomes yesterday’s news, just like Crimea was in 2014.
The heart of your inquiry is why does Ukraine get such aid and support while others don’t? To me the answer goes beyond the, “well there’s got to be something in it for us” cynical perspective and boils simply down to just how clear-cut the righteous side is from the wrong side.
In Syria, there was the FSA, sure. But this was muddied with the risk of supporting more radical factions. Additionally their factions were more or less headless, too. The world knows Zelenskyy and what he stands for, precisely.
So if you can give me a scenario where (a) The line between right and wrong are this clear and (b) The conflict is to the massive scale that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, then I’m all ears.
In that respect there is discussion to be had, I suppose. But does this change anything? Even you agree Russia is still 100% in the wrong, that we should support Ukraine. What irks you is alleged inconsistency which I think is beyond the scope of what we’re talking about here.
It is logical to identify as “whataboutism” criticism of “Western Powers” for actions unrelated to Ukraine in the context of a discussion about Ukraine, simply because the only thing about what’s being discussed in such a take is the saying bad things about the allies of one side.
Maybe it is whataboutism, or maybe that was not the intention of the person making that criticism in that context, but it’s logical to deem it so because it’s the explanation that makes most sense for a person making such a comment in such a context.
However such criticism is most definitelly warranted and makes sense in plenty of other contexts.
Also sometimes there really are no other contexts in which to point something out: as somebody has pointed out elsewhere under this post, in the West (including Lemmy, which seems to mainly have users from the “West”) there is quite a skewed and uneven coverage of the plight of Ukranians versus other plights right now in the World, and you hardly have a good context to talk about that when there are no discussions about that (it would be nice if we had some discussions about just how decayed Journalism in most of the Press is, which would lend itself to point such things out)
I don’t really agree with “whataboutism” because it can be applied to dismiss any inconvenient comparison and paint the one who raised it as a bad actor, even if it’s a valid point, without having to explain why it’s not a valid comparison. Comparing one thing with something else and noting the differences is a valid method of criticism.
Sure, merelly saying “whataboutism” is often used as you describe, mainly because like so many other words its meaning has been seriously mangled through misuse.
It does, however, make sense to ponder on the logic of pulling something wholly unrelated to the actual situation being discussed and posting it: since such “arguments” by association do not make sense in that context, it’s logical for those on the other side to then consider further elements seeking a reason until finding one that does make sense, which is typically an attempt at holding a position in a discussion after having exhausted actual logical arguments, something which itself would indiciate that the person using such “arguments” doesn’t really hold that position on logic.
You don’t need to label it as “whataboutism” to recognized an argument by association as the falacy it is, it’s just that using the word “whataboutism” is (or, maybe, used to be) a good shortcut instead of all the text above I just used to explain the rationalle behind the use of the argument by association falacy.
😭🤧 Tankies get hankies. 😭🤧
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m not a bot either beep beep
Cancelling on Lemmy now? Don’t make it Twitter pls.
I’ll cancel tankies and nazis all I fucking want.
As I cancel far left terrorists and stupid woke people.
It is pretty revealing how you immediately and uncritically identified with the “tankies and nazis” appellation.
Oh dear many people are triggered.
“left terrorists” 😂a term i haven’t heard in a while
Next will come Satanists and Marilyn Mason 's fans
Yep, lefties are terorist. They force everyone and haunt people who dont follow their woke ideology.
Wiki…
unfair cancelling ≠ being shamed for supporting a nazi-like regime slaughtering and raping civilians
Removed by mod
Russia has all the power - they can end the war as soon as they pull their shitbirds out of Ukraine & Crimea.
And hell, get the fuck out of Georgia while we’re discussing. Go home, sign up for a 12 step program and figure out your fucking lives while awaiting the warcrimes charges.
As Churchill said, Nations that go down fighting rise again, but those who surrendered timely were finished. Slava Ukraini
Did he say that before or after causing the Bengal famine of 1943?
He had nothing to do with that. The famine was largely caused by natural disasters, crop disease, Japanese invasion of Burma, and incompetent local beurocrats.
I would also imagine that he was a little busy with the impending fall of Europe in 1943 given the Americans did not join the war until 1944. I also looked at additional accounts and it appears the local government didn’t even declare a state of emergency, so how would he have known?
given the Americans did not join the war until 1944
What? Do you think D-day was the first day of war for Americans? It wasn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_campaigns_during_World_War_II
Or that Europe’s “fall” was pending in 1943. France had already been taken over by then, while the Battle of Britain had secured England’s airspace, and Russia was pushing back in the east. Germany had seen its high water mark at least two years before.
There was a rather Infamous Day a few years prior to that…best not feed the trolls I suppose
I wouldn’t trust an article from providence on this matter.
Care to provide an alternative then?
But you said “caused”
When would he be the cause, then? When he personally burns down granaries? I think if you were warned your actions might harm millions of people and you ignore those warnings you are a cause. Perhaps not the only one, but your choice is part of the problem.
France went down surrendering yet rose again - both during WWII.
They went down fighting. They fought badly, but so did everyone against Germany until they started taking things seriously.
Czechoslovakia then.
I feel bad for the average Ivan who gets shoved into the meat grinder, except I think those are all sunflower food now and it’s the dregs. The dregs of a brutalist society…
Slava Ukraini! It’s good to see all the weapons we built for this exact purpose being used properly, Vlad is being impaled on our 30 year old dusty stuff
Slava Palestine!
Don’t bring these dumb analogies to this conflict. While Israel definitely acts towards Palestine the way Russia acts towards its former colonies, Hamas itself acts like Russian backed “people’s republic”.
This will lead to radicalization of Israel’s politics. The date was chosen to have the maximum chance of shutting down any positive resolution around Palestine.
In other words, this is not an attempt to free Palestine, it’s an attempt to set the world on fire.
I have a hard time believing that the Israeli intelligence community didn’t see this coming. Mossad created the fucking Stuxned and can’t even see bunch of militants coming to their borders. The only person benefitting from this is Netanyahu as he may use this war as an excuse to further consolidate his power.
deleted by creator
Or they could have, I don’t know, agreed to a two state solution? If Palestine stops fighting, Israel will colonize them through their settlements. They’ll probably colonize them even if they fight, and the West will look back on the destruction of Palestine as a tragic oopsie that “we can’t do anything about now.” The blame for the violence is on Israel at this point, as the current government antagonizes Palestinians for what little land they still control. At the same time, Bibi works to take away the voice of even Israelis, turning what should be a more secular democracy into a theocratic dictatorship.
deleted by creator
Absolutely not.
That situation is way more complex than the one in Ukraine.
deleted by creator
… thats a very incorrect attempt at sparknotes
Don’t their borders overlap?
What’s more, ethnic cleansing has accompanied Israeli expansion in the past, and to a lesser degree, Israeli settlements in recent history. If Hamas wins, there will be no Israel. If hard-liners in Israel win, there will be no Palestine.
deleted by creator
Israel ethnically cleansed during 1948 independence war, and not everywhere.
No, only 90% of the country. Oh, and then again through 1956. And then again in '67.
What was the world’s response then?
Fuck, what’s the world’s response to the ongoing genocide in China?
FUCK, what’s the world’s response to the invasion and genocide perpetuated by Russia?
The idea that we’d all band together and shun a country until the genocide ended is not backed by evidence. Especially not since a third of the US thinks Israel has to exist for their prophesized end times to come about, and for that reason, supports them unconditionally.
deleted by creator
The 1949–1956 Palestinian expulsions were a continuation of the 1948 expulsion and flight of Palestinian Arabs from Israeli-controlled territory that occurred after the signing of the ceasefire agreements.[1][2][3][4] This period of the exodus[5] was characterised predominantly by forced expulsion during the consolidation of the state of Israel and ever increasing tension along the ceasefire lines ultimately leading to the 1956 Suez Crisis.[6]
Between 1949 and 1950, according to historian Benny Morris, Israel had displaced and expelled between 30,000 and 40,000 Palestinians and Bedouin.[7] Many villages along the ceasefire lines and the Lebanon border area were also leveled, many emptied villages were resettled by new Jewish immigrants and demobilized Israeli military forces.[8][9]
The 1967 Palestinian exodus or Naksa[1] refers to the flight of around 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians[2] out of the territories captured by Israel during and in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, including the razing of the Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yalo, and Bayt Nuba, Surit, Beit Awwa, Beit Mirsem, Shuyukh, Al-Jiftlik, Agarith and Huseirat and the “emptying” of the refugee camps of Aqabat Jaber and ʿEin as-Sultan.[3]
As long as the religious hold political power in the US, israel will never face a real threat of embargo. American right wings think the nation is a sign of rapture, as well as a convenient place to send the jewish diaspora when “the time comes,” and so actively do whatever they can to protect it.
And since they hold enough power to disrupt any economic reppercussions, israel can do whatever it likes
Is that why US supports them? Lol never thought about it that way
It’s definitely why a significant chunk of the US supports them, notably a lot of the Bush administration support had that kind of haze hanging over it. Israel’s government knows this, too, but they (probably rightly) figure that long term this is pointless masturbation and their goals align for now so they’ve been playing nice with the end-times worshippers.
Israeli support is paramount among the religious right wing movement in the US, specifically for this reason.
Saying Israel would simply wipe out Palestine if they were genocidal is overselling it though. Yeah i doubt they have any specific plans, but also they need the cheap Palestinian labor to continue running Israel. They can’t just get rid of all the Palestinians.
deleted by creator
This explains this sentiment.
This isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. The pro-Russia folk believe that Ukraine as a nation never existed in the first place, so they are fine with below option. The top one is just wishful thinking - why would they stop fighting? They stand nothing to gain from this and they’d lose everything they fought so hard to gain.
I’ll get down-voted yet again, but I’ll keep saying this: If you care about Ukraine - join the war, send in the troops. Otherwise - shut the fuck up. Spamming the flag everywhere does not help. Sending weapons doesn’t really turn the tides either. Cheering Ukrainian soldiers into a suicidal counter-offensive - well that’s an especially fucked up thing to do.
You already claimed in a previous thread on the same subject that Euromaidan was a CIA coup, so I don’t know why you think playing the Very Concerned Netizen now will be believable.
Sure did. We’ll see when the CIA declassifies the docs.
RemindMe! 17 years
Hopefully both of us, and this instance, stays alive for that time.
But honestly, whether it was or was not wouldn’t change my opinion on the subject one bit. Not sure what you’re talking about with “playing the Very Concerned Netizen” - my position is fairly consistent and it doesn’t take a Sherlock to figure out.
I think for the war to end some kind of terms of peace need to be drafted and ratified by the involved parties.
It now comes down to how much war is required to achieve such a thing.
Anti war positions tend to recognize the meat grinder of conscripts is an unnecessary step and promote minimizing the amount of time it needs to run.
But I am sure there are people expecting or even outright demanding the total capitulation of a nation at war, which is a particularly brutal position to take.
OH HAMBURGERS!!! No Ukraine!!! What will we ever do without someone to send aid to??
This is false. Russia has not moved 1cm beyond the southern states where Russians live and were being exterminated by Ukrainian forces.
Putin is not interested in taking all of Ukraine. He could have easily done it by now. Ukrainian army is a joke and virtually non existent now.
The Russians have only been defending their positions, not moving forward to take new ground.
Guys we found the indoctrinated Russian, send him some help
Lol, no mate. I just watch people in the know like former US Army generals and former UN weapons inspectors.
You know, people who actually know what the hell is going on in real life Vs the crap the news feeds us.
To be honest I don’t give a fuck either way. We are going to have the WW3 in a decade at the most. China is preparing to become sanction proof taking notes from Russian fuck ups and dumping US dollars and bringing back anything and everything they can to the mainland. Taiwan will be the new Poland!
And if the US continue to act like they are in control we all gonna wake up to a ruined world thanks to this pissing contest between 3 counties while we are part any of them.
With zelensky sending his support to Israel, who is also facing terror at their door step, this is an interesting take…
When your enemy labels you a Nazi to rationalize invasion, it helps refute the claim.
How the heck does supporting Israel prove you are not a Nazi? Your contemporary Nazi loves Israel.
By sending support to fascist israel?
I mean, “Uneasy truce is shattered (again) by civilian deaths” isn’t exactly celebratory material. There are only a handful of countries cheering this on, regardless of position on the Palestine issue, and they’re not the kind of company one wishes to be caught with on the international stage.
What do you expect when Iran is making the drones that are raining down on his country?
It’s an old Israeli saying. Since that’s daily life living there.
What gives any arbitrary country a mandate to exist though? We recognize that plenty of other social institutions are transient. Nobody demanded a massive international intervention to continue the existence of the Whig Party or the Studebaker Corporation. Why are countries unique and special? Also, this seems like a very modern thing: nobody is demanding we bring back Tanganyika or unwind German unification.
I get the desire to preserve the Ukranian culture and community. But you don’t need a sovereign nation for that: compare the re-establishment of the Welsh language and culture, for example.
Would the population have been better off-- at least in the “not exploded” sense-- by backing down with a quick surrender in exchange for some “we’ll formally tolerate your cultural differences” legal concessions? I’m sure at this point, it’s impractical to negotiate to that, because there’s too much bloodshed and burnt bridges on both sides, but it seemed like it was never even on the table: the Western world decided an independent Ukraine had to exist even if everyone involved knew it was going to be a very painful and expensive endeavour to keep it.
… Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.
What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West’s decision?
Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.
The West chose to make the “fight for your survival” play look more viable. If other countries send enough tanks/planes/missiles, perhaps Russia can be pushed back in a matter of a few months without huge loss of territory.
Conversely, if Ukraine was left to their own military and financial resources-- no sanctions to hamstring Russia, no sweetheart deals on equipment-- they could spend a few weeks burning through what they had, and then perhaps degrading to a years-long insurgency situation akin to Afghanistan. The best story you can sell is “We’re going to have years of violence and misery, and if we’re really lucky, our occupiers will decide we’re too much hassle and expense and leave on their own accord.” With that alternative, maybe a brokered deal would look more compelling.
… so your argument is that, hopefully, and this is an insane hope, that if Ukraine was unable to resist militarily at the outset of the invasion, that they MIGHT decide a protracted war was more trouble than survival was worth, and submit to a negotiated genocide?
I don’t know why point is he even making. He’s looking like a total evil jackass and has only proven that either he loves to troll, is actually trying to make tankies look like homicidal maniacs (they don’t need any help) or is actually evil lol!
It seems like we always slippery-sloped this conflict from the beginning. If Russia is given a square millimetre of land, then they’ll demand all of Ukraine, Poland, and for good measure, North Carolina, and of course kill everyone there.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective.
Putin has a need to posture and project power. Most autocrats do, and especially in a country that’s otherwise stagnant. Russia can hardly point to a robust economy or major international stage presence in the last few decades, and the continuing encroachment of institutions like NATO and the EU in his backyard just make them look even more impotent and irrelevant.
That’s why the Donbass was such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective: it lets him say “We’re important! We’re powerful! We still have a sphere of influence!”, and wrap it in an appealing (to a domestic audience) story of “We’re reuniting a community of fellow Russophones, who have been repressed by a country that didn’t get the memo that slapping the Black Sun on every surface isn’t the best PR choice ever”. It promised a cheap win that 's full of the exact symbolism he’s after.
From that perspective, it might have spiraled into a “we have to conquer/control all of Ukraine” situation because anything but a full formal surrender will be a military and political hairball to enforce. But does they even want that? It’s way more difficult and expensive, and presents a much less compelling story to rally the public behind; you have to really try to force the “de-Nazification” angle to try to make it remotely look palatable.
If we reconceptualize the situation as “what’s the cheapest way to let Putin walk away with the win he actually craves”, that might have been simply putting on a big stage act and saying “uwu you’re so big and strong, we can’t possibly stand up to your mighty military, here’s a token concession, please let us live, and can we have a treaty of mutual friendship because we like you so much more than those weak EU people?” He gets the street cred he craves at home, and overall bloodshed is minimized. Yes, it’s still incentivizing a bully to be a bully, but generally people prefer that to being dead.
That’s why the Donbass was such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective:
“That’s why Jews were such a great target, if you look at it from a marketing perspective.”
You’te not wrong, from a genocidal maniac perspective.
Brokered peace deal would mean more torture chambers and child trafficking.
One of the key differences to other instances is that Ukrainian culture was not really tolerated in the USSR, and definitely not in the imperialistic cute of Russia today. Rather, Russia learned from the demise of the USSR that it’s better to remove cultural and societal differences within its nation. And it’s going the same route as other empires have in the past and are doing today. Enforcing the use of its language, forcibly educating the youth in Russian culture and schools, often by literally abducting them from their Ukrainian homes and relocating them to Russia into Russian families. Kidnapping a people’s children is literally one of the five acts that make a genocide, according to the UN genocide convention from 1948.
There are many examples to show that putting peace above all else is dangerous. Using your example, the Welsh were violently suppressed and exploited for centuries by the English, following a similar scheme. The Welsh language was forbidden to teach, Welsh traditions were replaced by English, and power of autonomy was transferred to the English. Nowadays less than 20% of the Welsh can speak their language, and that is after the “resurgence” and it being allowed to be taught again.
Other examples are Native Americans, the Armenian genocide, Czech Sudetenland, Poland, oh, and remember what China is doing in Xinjiang? All of them posed no or little violent resistance in exchange for promises of peace and cultural autonomy. It rarely takes more than a few months before contracts with powerless people are broken.
Nations are just figments of imagination, but are an expression of communal will of a number of people. Modern ( as in last two centuries) concepts of human rights revolve around the freedom of people to choose how to live their lives. We usually consider it admirable if people are allowed to freely live their chosen cultures and tradition. We also consider it proper that people are allowed to choose what kind of society they want to live in/migrate to. We also grant asylum to those forcibly prevented from living their way of life and being persecuted in their home nation.
Nations are a construct allowing specific sets of societal rules to be applied to a large populace. An internationally recognized nation is also considered integrally protected, even if one nation might not agree with the internal societal rules of another country. These global base rules are very bare bones, but they are one of the big reasons we all get to live in the era dubbed “long peace”. Yes, there’s still wars and ugly conflicts, but at least there has been no major total war involving superpowers. Even the Ukraine war is luckily still limited in scope. Were Russia to unleash their full military might, it quickly would devolve into a humanitarian disaster not seen since the world war.
Why does the arbitrary nature of countries favor the invader though? What about the argument that Russia is an arbitrary country that doesn’t need to violently expand into neighbouring countries?
I’m going to assume that you’re arguing in good faith and aren’t just a troll.
I myself am very anti-war, but I tend to take a more practical standpoint, because in order to avoid war, both sides must work at peace, not just one.
There’s a few problems with your line of thinking.
For one, you suggest that Russia formally agreeing to tolerate Ukrainian culture would be enough, but suposing Ukraine did back down on that condition, how could they possibly trust Russia to stick to their word once any bargaining power they had is gone, especially since Russia has previously recognised Ukraine as a sovereign nation and had no problem ignoring their own word on that.
That brings me to problem two, or modern day notion of nations is relatively recent, but it does seem to work. Before the world wars, there was always borders changing and this was seen as normal. But since at least world war II this has changed, nowadays nations choose to recognise other nations right to exist with a given set of borders, this is a fragile system and if we simply allow countries to arbitrarily go against it without any repercussions, then why would any other country abide by it?
Also if Russia and Ukraine could agree to have Ukraine become part of Russia, I, as someone from neither country, would have nothing particularly against it, as long as it was entirely peaceful diplomacy, Russia removed that option the moment they started gathering troops near the border, because at minimum, that’s a threat.
I am no expert on the history involved here by any means, so if I have made any mistake, feel free to correct me, I’m simply thinking through the logic.
the Western world decided an independent Ukraine had to exist even if everyone involved knew it was going to be a very painful and expensive endeavour to keep it.
Tell us you’re a troll without saying you are one. The Western world isn’t the arbiter of global politics. Ukraine voted for independence in 1990 and the rest of the world recognised them as an independent country that could exercise their own domestic and foreign policy. Whether they align with the West is none of other’s concern. Denying a country of such right is essentially enabling Russia’s genocidal intent on Ukraine.
Do you want to go back to constant wars?
Recognizing countries has been a great way to stop invasions. The borders we drew might not have been perfect, but the peace generated is worthwhile
You’re a dumb fucking cunt.
Edit: I’d like to add that I hope you die today and that your pets eat your face and die from all the poison in your body, you shit eating God damn worm.
Amen
deleted by creator
