Funny wojak faces but to clear up an apparent misconception here, Ukrainian weren’t fighting for abstract concepts like “freedom” and Democracy", they were fighting to stop Russian soldiers from killing their families, raping their children, and burning their homes to the ground.
I hope this helps!
I guess those values like Nazism and goals of cultural suppression of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas was all just to “protect their families”
Ukrainians were/are still fighting to defend themselves from an illegal invasion. But America sees and has always seen Ukraine as a proxy to weaken a geo-strategic rival. NATO was not realistically on the table as long as the conflict in the Donbas was ongoing (it would have immediately triggered art.5) to keep promising NATO instead of working on a more realistic path to peace has probably caused the death of 100000s of Ukrainians. And just as with many other imperial proxies in history, the proxy is left to deal with the fallout while the empire retreats to the metropol and prepares for the next conflict.
Really spot on except America isn’t exactly retreating, it’s just now under the leadership of an administration that would prefer to have Russia as an ally.
Instead of two imperialist powers fighting via proxy, they could just work together and strip smaller counties of their natural resources, side by side. Imperialism united.
Ukraine was always getting stripped of its resources and immiserated; the IMF loan required them to privatize and sell off their ports, power grids, factories, schools, etc for pennies.
I think you’ll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians “fighting”) to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.
i was wondering why i suddently see russian-imperialism apologists in the comment sections
but then i noticed I’m in the federated global feed particularly lemmy.ml
i really need to block this instance
Imma be honest with you chief the amount of times I come here for funny leftist memes and then see a bunch of pro imperialistic takes or starting school yard “nuh uh your crimes are worse then my crimes” is so draining.
I get that when you gather a bunch of people under one banner of a nuanced concept you are gonna get a range of people from mild mannered to fanatical about it.
Like this must be why people throw around “othering” loaded terms like tankie and liberal in here.
This is why I wish it was just high level concept lefty memes, cause you’ll never get satisfying low level discussion online, just high level screeching and slap fights. So now I just try to not engage, just look for memes to talk to people IRL about instead.
And Putin, out of the kindness of his heart, sent soldiers in to kill more civilians and rape children, so he could seize territory and strip Ukraine of it’s natural resources.
Raped children? I read a lot of western news and I never heard about that.
Yes it’s been posted. Thanks
The report:
In the cases we have investigated, the age of victims of sexual and gendered-based violence ranged from four to 82 years. The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons.
I followed the sources they link and the ones those link and found that the best substantiation they have is “according to the accounts collected by some NGOs”.
I don’t doubt there must be unspeakable shit happening, there’s been a war for so long that monsters are bound to take part. But I’ll hold my judgement as to how systematic it is until evidence is presented, not just claims by notorious liars who said the same shit about Hamas without any evidence and no pushback from these very same publications.
UN back at it again with “we have witness testimony but no evidence of this adversary of the US doing horrifying acts”
Or:
"We have found the evidence to be nonexistent, the case to be exaggerated, the timing and backers to be suspect
But US media needs a soundbite so here’s a short dismissal and a long condemnation"
According to the report though there have just been some cases of Russian soldiers doing it. There doesn’t appear to be the weaponised use of sexual violence a la Isreal, but ya wars are always like this. I’ll never understand the people who simp for them.
Edit: Before any one wants to call me out for minimising SA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
Literally every war ever is full of SA
And the report provides… zero evidence. How come there’s plenty of evidence for Ukraine’s crimes (always discredited as Russia propaganda) but Ukraine can just say shit and it’s up to everyone else to prove they’re lying?
Fucked up. War sucks
Libs really do just have the one line for every enemy of the State Department don’t y’all? First it was Hamas, now it’s Russia, and y’all never bring a source.
Probably because you know once you do bring one we’ll let you know the article only points to credible anonymous sources as always.
You need a source that Russia is invading Ukraine? bruh just ask Putin
You know very well I need a source that contains any evidence to the claims that Russians are systematically raping children. But it’s easier for libs to fight windmills than it is to walk back jingoist stances they readily swallowed without any evidence and repeat as fact.
Us in the global south know that white westerners like to paint their opponents as monstrous animals at the slightest provocation to justify their genocidal drives. So either prove your accusations or shut the fuck up.
Russia is a Nazi country doing Nazi shit and you aren’t a leftist if you’re defending Nazi shit.
Oh look, holocaust trivialization
Calling a Nazi a Nazi is not “Holocaust trivialization”.
Yeah, and what you did was Holocaust trivialization
Do you have a source that Putin sent soldiers to rape children?
So, just NBC news doing the usual and boosting baseless claims like it did about Hamas and beheaded babies? Do y’all even read the shit you post or do you just skim for a headline that matches what you want to say?
The report cites no evidence and only points to “anonymous sources” (how surprising). NBC also doesn’t cite any evidence and points to other articles posted by themselves, one of which says are in the process of collecting the evidence but:
Experts worry that investigations could be less efficient and that some evidence could be mishandled or not make its way to investigative teams with the International Criminal Court and the Prosecutor General’s Office in Ukraine
Really convenient. Excellent standards of proof as always. No wonder the ICJ has denounced the lawfare of Ukraine.
The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of proving facts.’
Indeed.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/037/31/pdf/g2403731.pdf
Here is the report right from the UN.
That article doesn’t contain anything about Putin sending soldiers to rape children. Did you post the wrong link?
long before Russia went in
There’s a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko’s government
The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.
Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn’t have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.
If America’s goal was to put Svoboda in power, they didn’t do a very good job of keeping them there, did they?
I have read the Nuland transcript. She’s talking about the existing leader of the opposition. Of course she said Yatsenyuk was the guy, he was the goddamn leader of the opposition. He was the one guy avalable with the best democratic mandate at the last election. Yanukovych even offered to make him prime minister at one point.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?
Perhaps if Russia was so concerned about casualties in the Donbas, it should not have invaded and caused hundreds of thousands more casualties.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?
97% in favour of Crimea joining Russia. Western polling was a solid 70%+. The new 2014 regime was legitimately divisive to the point that the majority ethnic Russian populations in Ukraine did not want to submit to them.
Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just… quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money?
I want to give y’all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we’re stupid but sometimes I think there’s a more obvious answer.
deleted by creator
Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU. The US didn’t need to do a damn thing to influence that, a long history of Russian imperialism did it all for them
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan (pg 167). They simply did not spend “all that money”, because a single digit millions of dollars a year is a rounding error in the US budget. American spending on Ukraine in 2013 was 0.00024% of the federal budget.
If Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU, then why did they democratically elect Yanukovych, which the US subsequently couped in coordination with the Banderites?
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan
Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/
With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.
Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.
The US didn’t need to do a damn thing
Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it.
So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?
Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized.
umm actually history started on February 24th, 2022 ☝️🤓
It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years
Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!
See, I can’t tell if you’re talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA ever since.
Eh, while they’re part of maintaining the status quo, we’re ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
And the CIA has always been an attack dog of the capitalists. That’s its whole mission.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist “left wing” coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence kinda similar to what is happening in the US right now
And your evidence for the US installing this government is what exactly?
Let me say this as a westerner - if someone all of a sudden tried to put me in a Putinist puppet state, shit would burn. To the ground.
Im assuming you aren’t American, then 👀
deleted by creator
Fact check me.
deleted by creator
So you’re not simply claiming the events weren’t as described. You’re claiming they didn’t happen at all, and there was no transfer of power at all? Wow.
deleted by creator
thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh… What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
This was always Ukraine’s fate.
The OG coup happened under the Obama admin, the far-right were forced into government under Trump pt I, Ukraine was forced to sell off state assets and take billions in loans by the Biden admin, and now the US is preparing to pick the bones clean over the next decades.
It’s nice that yall are recognizing that the US isn’t there to help the Ukrainian people now, but we’re all gonna repeat this next war.
I stopped being Charlie Brown falling for the football 23 years go, when I saw that the consent manufacturing for the second Iraq war rested on no hard evidence.
Libya was what got me, i was a chump cheering while i watched it on CNN but the more I thought about it the less sense it made then i read the shock docturine and some chomsky. Libya went from the highest score for quality of life in africa to literal slave markets. For what? So some slimy fucking americans can take their resources instead of negotiating for them?
Rome creates a desert and calls it peace.
Not even just changes in administration. The U.S. will often suddenly move on or just decide you will work better as a villain for internal politics. The US basically told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait only to then use that invasion as justification to make him a boogeyman for the next decade.
That’s not what happen.
deleted by creator
Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn’t exactly in Russia’s interest.
Low population would be a problem is they were valued. Their tactics show they are not.
Also a lot of minerals != all the minerals. US also has minerals, still want the ones in Ukraine.
This is the level of uncritical reasoning that’s to expect of .ml
The least racist westie has logged on.
deleted by creator
One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.
deleted by creator
They weren’t under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.
What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
In 2008, the combined wealth of Ukraine’s 50 richest oligarchs was equal to 85% of Ukraine’s GDP.[3] In November 2013, this number was 45% (of GDP).[
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn’t the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
The credit goes to the US and it’s pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
In reality, the reason for the coup is that certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US. The US will now get a return on their investment when they take over whatever resources left in Ukraine that Russia doesn’t take.
Ah yes, the old “color revolution” nonsense again. Classic Russian propaganda bullshit.
Ah yes, well documented facts are RuSsIAn ProPaGandad. Brains as smooth as bowling balls around here.
No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn’t poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn’t kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn’t poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam’s Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO’s formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam’s razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they’re not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Why do you believe Putin when he says he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine? Wouldn’t your belief in Russia as only lying mean that he actually doesn’t want to sell Ukrainian minerals to the US?
Russia can and does lie. It also tells the truth. Analyzing historical trends and motivations is important for figuring out what is actually going on, rather than just assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says. That’s not Occam’s Razor, that’s analytical nihilism.
I didn’t say Russian only lies. I said Russia “has lied about pretty much everything for a long time”. That is not the same thing.
assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says
I’m not just assuming the opposite of Russia’s statements. I’m drawing a best guess conclusion based on two premises:
- Russia has a history of lying about its true intentions and actions
- Russian oligarchs and elites would absolutely be interested in mineral wealth, given their history of megalomania
I think it’s likely that mineral wealth would have been part of the Kremlin’s motivation to invade. Along with general megalomania and irredentism.
Certainly you can see how the statement that “Russia has lied about pretty much everything” can be seen as “Russia always lies,” right?
Either way, I still don’t see why NATO expansionism would not be the primary factor, given that that has been a huge part of Russian geopolitics since back when they were still Socialist. Mineral access could be a secondary factor, but that doesn’t explain minerals being absent from the peace deal proposed by Russia near the beginning of the war, which instead focused on NATO.
It seems more likely that as Ukraine and the US rejected the Russian-proposed peace deals, Russia has seen that as an additional opportunity to recoup some of the cost of the war through going for minerals as a secondary objective.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation’s existence.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam’s Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia’s doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of “Great Man Theory” is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it’s the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
deleted by creator
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism
Leftist: “Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop.”
Radical Centrist: “You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler.”
Leftist: “Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza.”
Radical Centrist: “More antisemitism! You’re only proving my point.”
Leftist: “War is Bad.”
Radical Centrist: “Just what a Fascist would say.”
deleted by creator
No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that
You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.
Putin is the Czar. What’s on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.
Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.
deleted by creator
I don’t see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it’s important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.
deleted by creator
You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.
It’s hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won’t accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.
Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.
Maybe the primary cause was Putin’s megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.
I don’t believe in “Great Man Theory” as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.
One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.
No, it was because they didn’t want a bordering nation to join a hostile military alliance.
And oil
Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.
The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.
The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia’s imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia’s role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia’s agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.
lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.
I believe this is what’s called whataboutism in liberal parlance
what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into “blossoming democracy”, especially in the minds of the russian people.
What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.
Your unwillingness to understand does not a non sequitur make.
If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
deleted by creator
Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
Quote:
When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.
deleted by creator
They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
deleted by creator
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias
deleted by creator
If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.
But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.
What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
US is fatal even for itself
Going to start threatening to bomb Texas if it doesn’t hand over its oil reserves, at this rate.
US is in a state of slow implosion. Rest of the world needs to look at collaborating while excluding the US.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
I strongly encourage all nations to begin violating US intellectual property rights. Nations like India already do so with pharmaceuticals.
Eventually other nations will need to take on the mantle of tech and pharmaceutical research and development and we don’t want to live in a world where all this progress is lost.
Americans have chosen to nuke their own democracy and we need to minimize the damage done to the rest of the world as much as possible.
Our implosion isn’t so slow these days.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
China will take large chunks. But I think we will also see a decentralization as china won’t be able to take it all. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil and so on will probably increase their regional soft powers a lot.
This process also already started years ago, but will be catalyzed by this.
Russophobia has been the big disease, really created by US/USAID/NED/CIA. Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China. Trump is literally forcing the world to liberate itself from US. The US is still a nice market, but China is much larger to sell into, and tariff wars are not likely to bring investments into the US.
A multipolar world makes as much obvious sense as democracy. But it is pretty remarkable that US is pushing for it now.
Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China
I mean, what would Europe need from russia? We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are. Only countries seriously aligning themselves with Russia those days are either extremely weak and near russia and so have 0 choice in the matter or try to play both sides for fun and profit LARPing as Tito.
We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are.
There’s a reason why the peace talks for Ukraine are between the US and Russia and the EU isn’t invited. Nobody takes Europe seriously anymore. The only thing resembling global power that Europeans have is their remaining colonies.
what would Europe need from russia?
Resources is big one, including infrastructure already in place for energy. Most of the world sides with Russia through this conflict. Even some US colonies have done well playing both sides. Russia is also an export market. World needs Russia to limit global warming. Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work.
yes, sure, but resources, labour and a market isn’t enough to elevate you to a global superpower. I’m not proposing EU going full Juche, just why would anyone agree to anything better for russia than being equal trade partners. All those things are great and useful, sure, but you’re able to get them elsewhere. If you want special treatment you need to bring something unique to the table. Like the US used to be able to bring.
Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work
I don’t think anybody except maybe putin is trying to do that. At this point everyone would love russia just fucking off and being normal.
Cheap energy, labor, and resources and a slightly greater degree of independence from America.
Russia also still holds a lot of their traditional soft power in many countries, including several EU countries. They also greatly increased their softpower by helping to get far right parties into power or at least signinificant influence in several EU countries (like Orban or Germany just 2 days ago).
On the other hand Russia manouvered itself into a very weak geostrategical position lately (Ukraine and Syria). Everyone noticed that and this will likely lead to some restructuring in several regions, unlikely to be in Russias favour.
I currently find it really hard to make assumptions about Russias role in the mid-term future. That is also, why I didn’t mention Russia in my post.
I don’t see any country being able to engineer coups by supporting terrorists as effectively as the US, so I don’t see Russia or other local powers replacing the US’s influence in countries where the left presents a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.
The monumental level of troll farming performed by the Russian state suggests they are deserving of few allies.
Nemiroff 🇺🇦
Lemmy has a lot of Russia spam. Just browsed OP’s history.
3 years before they even allowed sale of 3rd party F-16s and a nonstop barrage about how effective the 90s era surplus we sold to Ukraine was gonna magically win the war.
I got banned from NCD for sharing this sentiment saying that there was literally no outcome where the US would allow Ukraine to join NATO, regardless of the acting government.
NCD is basically a NATO fanclub, so that checks out.
GODDAMMIT, MARY!!
history truly is a flat circle
deleted by creator
As far as OBL goes, the US armed and trained his faction against the soviets during the soviet-afghan war.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You ever heard of operation cyclone before?
deleted by creator
Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.
deleted by creator
We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.
deleted by creator
That’s not how Operation Cyclone worked. You can just read the wikipedia article, there’s several books on the subject, but honestly Blowback Season 4 is pretty good coverage. Episode 3 specifically deals with who at the CIA interfaced with the afghans and how.
It also includes the methods the US promoted the mujahedin as freedom fighters to the US before ultimately turning on them, which is what the meme is about.
deleted by creator
The CIA using the ISI to transport some weapons and train soldiers isn’t “this ISI did everything therefore the Mujahedin weren’t supported by the US”, it’s “the ISI were a tool of the CIA”, the operation was run out of Washington. It had US media providing glowing coverage of the Mujahedin as they committed war crimes.
deleted by creator
This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn’t count.
That’s the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
It’s late stage capitalism, bro, revolution is just around the corner, bro.
Repeat for 150 years.
Revolution has already come in many countries, and the US Empire is on its way out. Not sure what your point is, this is correct.
China is ready to take over as the lead capitalist empire.
China is neither Capitalist nor an Empire, so not sure what your point is.
How is China not capitalist? The government keeps it’s capitalist leashed, but they are the driving force are they not?
I’m also not sure how you’d not see them as an empire? It’s a big ole place with a lot of folk.
Okay, tankie
deleted by creator
Seems to me it’s more saying that NATO’s stated goal for Libya was to “liberate” it, when in reality it was a disaster.
Either way, I’m more interested in continuing the conversations I tried to have with you regarding Marx’s Law of Value and your understanding of how the PRC functions.
deleted by creator
Qadaffi kinda was between ~2003 and 2011. The CIA even captured and handed over enemies from all over the world, along with providing intelligence about dissidents within Libya.
You don’t have to respond in this thread, I just want you to give an example on the other thread that you say disproves Marx’s Law of Value, and ideally also elaborate on why you think workers in the PRC had it better 2-3 decades ago compared to today.
and its already outdated, we need to add jolani in there
People are seriously acting like Bin Laden was bait and switched by the US. I somehow remember it differently…
…he was, though? We funded the Mujahideen to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then when the USSR collapsed we cut him loose to get all chummy with the Saudi government so we could get that cheap oil.
Almost as if a preventable policy shift happened.
Has it? Ukraine is stuck with a loan because Biden did not give them the weapons but loaned them. If this was not the plan all along, why would they be loans?
Have they? As far as i am aware, the Lend-Lease act of 2022 hasnt been used once. The weapons weren’t loaned, but the 4.4 Billion dollars for buying weapons were. Thats a fraction of the 176 billion the US spent in this war.
That 500B debt is number pulled of Trumps Ass.
deleted by creator
you misspelled predictable there
That would be a compelling argument (unpredictable policy shift) if it hadn’t been predicted by socialists all over the world when the war started
Socialists predicted that the US would cozy up to russia?
Socialists predicted that Ukraine would be betrayed by the US, there’s literally a 2+ year-old meme in the comment section of this post with the picture of Zelensky being welcomed by Gaddafi, Saddam and Bin Laden
“Buyer to collect”?
Only Russian dogs like Trump think this is debt. Fuck it go to war, draft maga and send waves of them into the meat grinder no one gives a fuck. Ukraine is entitled to all the defense they ask for period. All true Americans agree on this.
Nato had 3 years to do anything about this and have only more started talking about a second branch of defense, eu army. That is not something Americans will take blame for. Put your money where your mouth is and help Ukraine with more than left over bullshit from your dusty reserves.
If Dems didn’t think it was debt then maybe they should have sent weapons gifts instead of weapons loans.
Gringos might fall for the good cop bad cop shit but the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month and we know that Dems build the bulldozer and wail when Republicans wreck shit with it.
… the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month …
i’ve always wondered if this is because of the suffering it’s causes; you remember injuries that others have visited upon you, but you forget them easily if you’re the one causing the injury.
The axe forgets but the tree remembers
Everyone, please report racist comments like these. There’s no need to respond to them.
Just curious, how exactly is that comment racist?
Standard blue maga comment, blaming all the US’s problems on foreigners, and claiming that trump is a “russian dog”, and not a standard white supremacist / imperialist in the tradition of all US presidents.
But… How is that racist?
It might be stupid, but racist? That’s a stretch.
I didn’t see the original comment nor do I need to, but ethnic nationalism, the ‘blood and soil’ kind of nationalism, seeks to forge nationality into the same framework as race. Approaching nation states from this perspective is effectively racist, inherently so.
This is compared to civic nationalism where commitment to national values matters. So one could argue that without clarification it is a stretch, but at the same time… it’s usually pretty clear which version is meant.
The same way that Nazi’s blaming all of Germany’s problems on “Judeo-Bolshiviks” was rascist
I did a little writeup brainstorm the other day, om which I reached the same conclusion, that “Russo/Sino-Tankieism” is to Lemmy what “Judeo-Bolshevism” was to Nazi Germany. I’m glad to see you’re reading the words out of my mind
Referring to another nationality as animals is dehumanizing in contexts like this.
The only thing worst than a strong enemy are weak allies.
