Libs: “THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION THAT THERE’S GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG, AND IF YOU DARE TO BRING UP THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT OF ABUSE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS YOU’LL GET BANNED!!!”

Also libs: “Didn’t you know that 15k of the 40k humans murdered in Gaza were actually terrorists? it-is-known Also, lots of civilians die in wars like the one happening in Gaza, it’s sad but inevitable”

smuglord

Fuuuuuuuuuck this shit.

  • Azzu@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    2 months ago

    Genuine question, just because there are some nazis in Ukraine, that justifies a military invasion? Should all countries with neo-nazis in them be invaded by others? Should Russia invade itself, as there are neo-nazis also within Russia? Do you think invasion, killing others, is a valid form of affecting change?

    If you say yes to any of these, why are some invasions good (Russia->Ukraine) but other invasions are bad (US->wherever)?

    What do you say about the 2013 Ukrainian revolution (Euromaidan), which goal was to topple a Russian-controlled corrupt government and give democratic power to the people? Why do you think the toppling of a Russian-controlled corrupt government wouldn’t be a much more likely reason for the invasion of Ukraine? Doesn’t it make much more sense that if Russia loses autocratic control over Ukraine through a people’s revolution, and can’t pay a corrupt government anymore to do what they want, they would try to regain that control through violence/annexation?

    • zkrzsz [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      Nazi is part of the problem.

      The Nazi Kiev regime attacked the ethnically Russian Donbass for eight years intending to commit genocide in their quest for an ethnically pure Ukraine and Russia finally came to their aid after it became clear that the Minsk agreements were never going to be honored. Also, NATO was turning Ukraine into a hyper militarized threat to the integrity and security of Russia itself. Refusal of the US and Europe to negotiate on a new inclusive security framework, refusal to stop NATO expansion eastward, and the relentless and violent anti-Russian psychosis that has gripped Ukraine since the Maidan coup that triggered a civil war in a country in which half or more of the population are essentially Russian became intolerable.
      https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/1954733

      What do you say about the 2013 Ukrainian revolution (Euromaidan), which goal was to topple a Russian-controlled corrupt government and give democratic power to the people? Why do you think the toppling of a Russian-controlled corrupt government wouldn’t be a much more likely reason for the invasion of Ukraine? Doesn’t it make much more sense that if Russia loses autocratic control over Ukraine through a people’s revolution, and can’t pay a corrupt government anymore to do what they want, they would try to regain that control through violence/annexation?

      Why do you think the government formed from Euromaidan is legitimate when the people living there, Eastern Ukraine don’t think so? In your word, they just traded a Russian-controlled corrupt government to a US-controlled corrupt government.

      • Azzu@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I understand that there are people in Ukraine who are more aligned with Russia than EU. However, in democracies, which is a terrible form of government but still the best one we have, the majority wins. In 2013, the parliament of Ukraine overwhelmingly supported the European-Ukrainian association agreement, which is the democratically elected part of the government, and then the Yanukovich government suddenly decided, no, they’re not going to honor this decision. That is clear corruption in Russian direction. I can’t deny there might still be corruption in the government formed after Euromaidan, but it is very clear that in total, the majority of Ukraine supported this.

        It’s kind of telling to me how you ignored the part about an invasion being a fine way to solve this problem. Shouldn’t the people within a country solve their internal problems themselves? There was no military invasion by EU/US/NATO into Ukraine to bring it under their control. NATO militarization or membership looked very unlikely… Until the 2014 invasion of Crimea and now the 2022 invasion of the whole of Ukraine.

        There is a whole different level between trying to gain influence through trade agreements compared to trying to gain influence by military invasion. Sure, I completely concede that Western governments are trying to get influence over Ukraine. But why do these influence battles have to escalate into a war, don’t you agree that no matter who influences/controls a country, normal people’s lives are only going to get worse with a war than with peace? The invasions of the US to “help” all kinds of people (obviously not the real motivation) are rightfully condemned, why is this invasion any different? The thought of course is, after the war things should be better, but when had this ever been the case? During WW2, yes, but the problems in Ukraine were nowhere close to ethnic cleansing like was seen in the Nazi regime, in fact it is heavily disputed that there were any coordinated aggression against ethnic Russians at all. Only 3 months passed between Euromaidan and the Russian invasion of Crimea. There wasn’t even enough time to properly form a government, nevermind starting a controlled persecution of ethnic Russians (if that even was a plan/possibility, which is highly disputed).

        Another thing, why didn’t Russia stop with Donbas if it was only about “saving the Russians” in eastern Ukraine? Why did they go for Kiev immediately in 2022? It is quite clear that this current war was never (at least only) about saving “prosecuted Russians”.

        • zkrzsz [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Another thing, why didn’t Russia stop with Donbas if it was only about “saving the Russians” in eastern Ukraine? Why did they go for Kiev immediately in 2022? It is quite clear that this current war was never (at least only) about saving “prosecuted Russians”.

          They went for the head to make a quick peace negotiation. Not joining NATO is a big one in the deal and stop Azov from shelling Donbas/Donetsk. Peace deal fell apart thanks to Boris Johnson.

          Fears of peace talks with Putin rise amid US squabbling

          Why do you think Russia invaded, exactly ? they started the whole conflict after decades of making NATO encroachment along their borders a clear red line and being very clear what would happen if it was crossed

          The US still kept meddling in Ukraine (and other post-soviet states), with Russia making every effort short of war to try and stop that - like offering loans just as large as the IMF loans for example, except without asking for the batshit insane austerity measures the latter did

          Then the CIA backed a far-right coup there in 2014, and much of the following years were spent with NATO financing and training nazi soldiers there in preparation of trying to take back Crimea, while breaking the Minsk agreements in the meantime (I’ll pass on the various atrocities and huge reframing of nazi criminals as national heroes in Ukraine there at the same period, since it’s barely related, but it is worth a mention too)

          Now both Ukrainian and Russian people are dying. A peace deal would stop that.