I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      At this stage, since they have fought so well, I’d guess there would just be a much smaller, much weaker Ukraine.

      We will likely see this happen now Trump is president. He is too egotistical to not take revenge on them for not playing along with his quid pro quo back in 2019.

      The Ukrainian flags in republican yards never meant a thing… They sold Ukraine out at the polls.

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      That includes only battlefield context. Truth is Russia will at the very best economically and politically fall into a 3rd world country level the moment it loses the war. More probably dissolve into smaller states = there would be no Russia as we know it today anymore.

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t understand how other communists can defend Russia at this point. It feels to me like most of them forget that Russia is no longer a communist country.

    They’re capitalists. Putin is often using christo-fascist tactics. He’s also pushing for Russian imperialism in very capitalistic ways. Also, Russia was 100 percent the agitators here.

    Just because it challenges US worldwide hegemony doesn’t automatically make it good, boys.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      6 days ago

      Tankies might as well be called CINOs — communists in name only. Their defining feature is reverence towards authoritarian leaders. They revere Putin and Xi as “strong” leaders and completely ignore how little their regimes have in common with the socialist workers paradise Marx envisioned.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        6 days ago

        My favorite is when they argue that China has billionaires and private property and a stock market because Marx said you have to go through capitalism to get to communism. Which… doesn’t somehow also apply to the West?

        • RandomGen1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          What makes you say they don’t think it applies to the West? I don’t follow your logic there.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Because if you tell them China is just as capitalist as the West, they tell you it absolutely isn’t and is a communist country.

            • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 days ago

              Ok but China is absolutely not as capitalist as the west, and that’s an insane thing to say.

            • RandomGen1@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              6 days ago

              I’d buy that line if China wasn’t integrating those large businesses (albeit slowly) into the public sector, something the west is not doing, but rather moving to deregulate more and more (Thanks Trump! /s)

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                And yet it’s still not a communist country. I get that you want it to be a communist country, but it isn’t.

                • RandomGen1@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  You won’t see me argue that China is communist, it’s socialist as it stands now with the stated goal of becoming communist

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 days ago

        I especially despise how Putin and Xi were seen as ‘strong’ leaders, but when shit hit the fan in the last 5 years, they just hid away from repercussions

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        Do you know what you’ve done!? You’ve summoned him! He’s like Beetlejuice, say three Marxist terms and he appears. Combie will be here soon.

    • MoistMogwai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 days ago

      My Mom said Russia had to attack Ukraine, because they were trying to join NATO. I asked why she thinks Ukraine was trying to join NATO. I’m still digging for a bedrock of logic.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        5 days ago

        Part of the problem with game theory and finding a “bedrock of logic” is that game theoretical analysis is often recursive. It’s not a stack of prepositions and conclusions; it’s often a loop. Sort of like a resonance structure. I’ve got my gun aimed at you because your gun is aimed at me because my gun is aimed at you … recursively forever.

        My understanding is that the US/NATO and the USSR/Russia, ie the two sides of the Cold War, have maintained a sense of peace and security by maintaining a buffer between the two sides. A buffer of distance, which is relevant because it relates to the time it takes nuclear weapons to travel from one adversarial territory to the other.

        The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.

        The public declaration (by Kamala Harris, incidentally) that Ukraine would join NATO is a violation of a promise made by Reagan that NATO would not extend to the border of Russia.

        It’s similar to the USSR’s attempt to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, in the sense that it’s simply too close.

        That’s my understanding of the motivation behind Russia’s invasion. I’m quite new to all this though.

        So it’s less like “Stop resisting!” and more like “Drop the gun!”

        My suspicion is that MAD overall is diminishing in its power to stabilize the world militarily, as a result of new military technologies coming into play (space-based weapons, drones, AI, hypersonic missiles, iron dome scenarios) as well as more and more nuclear powers coming online, and the increasing probability of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors.

        And finally there’s China’s overall rise toward the role of hegemonic power.

        The Cold War basically organized itself (and hence organized the influences that minimized military action) around two major powers. Now there’s a third major power that’s rapidly accelerating toward becoming the major power. It’s changing all the equations that balanced out in the 1970s, 80s, etc.

        • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          The reason Ukraine wanted to join NATO is that Russia already had occupied Crimea and part of Georgia before. All that after Ukraine gave up all the nukes they still had from USSR times. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia before the occupation of Crimea.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days ago

          The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.

          The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by Kennedy moving nuclear missiles into Turkey, within striking range of the USSR. It never would have happened if Kennedy hadn’t decided to start swinging his dick around.

        • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Distance is really not much of a factor any more, and hasn’t been for a long time. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg can already be reached by submarine launched cruise missiles in less than 15 minutes (conservative estimate). And let’s face it, with MAD being a thing, any kind of nuclear strike is likely to escalate into all-out nuclear annihilation, anyway. This makes any attempt at overwhelming the opponent a losing proposition. So in that sense nothing has changed since, oh, the mid-1970s?

          Then there is the argument that Russia doesn’t want a long shared border with NATO. Guess what, their aggression has caused Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which has only added to their shared border with NATO. That they already had with Poland and the Baltic states (there is no treaty nor official document prohibiting NATO expansion).

          And finally, how hard is it to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance? It is neither politically geared to nor militarily capable of mounting a conquest of Russia. The fact that so many of Russia’s neighbors are eager to join the alliance should be a pretty strong hint as to why it needs to exist in the first place. It is Russia that cannot be trusted, not NATO. And you can’t make your neighbor “drop the gun” in their own house. The Ukrainians were stupid enough already to return their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for explicit security guarantees. What a mistake that was.

          Don’t even get me started on how China is criminally underrated as a manifest threat to world peace…

  • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Remember that the original Canadian intent of the UN Peacekeepers was that they would forcibly create and enforce peace.

    It was the USSR and the USA that objected to the concept.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Similarly if most countries have a mutual defence pact, no one country will be able to invade another without being at war with literally the whole world.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m afraid that mutual defense isn’t as iron clad as you think. If Article 5 of NATO ever gets triggered you’ll get a masterclass on weaseling out of obligations. It’s ironic because Ukraine may already be receiving the kind of support a full NATO member is entitled to.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Unfortunately with Trump the US will try to weasel their way out. Europe knows too well what happens.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            7 days ago

            This does seem likely with Trump… but he’s also in bed with the military-industrial complex, which never misses a chance to get contracts.

        • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          It only works if you actually commit to it.

          But imagine the implications if a country did not commit to it (bar an obvious one like Hungary or Turkey). They’ll likely get sanctioned, probably will have trouble entering any useful alliances for the next decade or so because no one trusts them anymore.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            If one didn’t, sure. But what happens when NATO as a whole doesn’t defend Poland? What’s Poland going to do? Or even just Trump’s US?

            • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 days ago

              The trick is that (Eastern) Europe is filled with NATO troops and material from all countries. You would need an extremely nasty retreat of these troops if you do not support (say) Poland. Also at the moment (officially) the US has stationed nuclear weapons in 6 European countries, and there are very likely more also in the form of submarines that are not known to the public. Retreating means leaving those weapons in Russian hands. Then again, maybe Trump does not care about that.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Well ideally if you don’t want to be a part of an agreement, you just tell the people you made the agreement with that you are no longer a part of it.

              If you do so amicably, parties may be fine with it it may not have bad effects. If you wait till one of those counties is being invaded and back out, it likely would not end amicably, and with them having to switch over to a wartime economy, they may cut all trade moving forward with the member who screwed them over. Could cost the U.S. trillions in trade annually.

              Aka it would be more profitable to support your allies, or get out of the agreement early, but that doesn’t guarantee counties don’t say… Why should we trade with someone who would hang us out to dry? And it hurts our economy anyway.

    • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ireland has peacekeepers between Israel and Lebanon right now. They wouldn’t be there if “create peace” was one of the missions.

      Peace must exist, however briefly, and then the peacekeepers place themselves in harm’s way to keep the peace.

      Extend the mission to militarily “create peace” and suddenly you are just NATO/USA. How can either side trust a peace that was enforced upon them and not call it a defeat, whose borders are disputed for eternity? Every nationalist who wants to stir sentiment can just say “look what the British/Americans/UN imposed on us”. Outside forces drawing borders is pretty much the cause of 90% of warfare, civil and otherwise, for the last 80 years.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      A Canadian was also the principal author of the UN declaration on human rights, and another was the reason NATO is a political as well as military alliance. We just keep winning!

  • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t even know what they (western tankies) get from this. Average dumbass Russian only cares about his ass, and the pretended “glory”. There is no “Conservative brotherhood which spans across the ocean”. They don’t speak your language, they don’t have the same problem, and they hate YOU with passion, because on average, they are racist and dumb.

    So my only hypothesis is that tankies think (??) that by going “contrarian” they show how smart they are, and that “did the research” lol.

    • caboose2006@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      6 days ago

      No, it’s because “America bad”. There’s a lot of reasons to hate America, and the drip feeding of munitions to Ukraine is one of them. I think we should have been sending everything from the start with the only restriction being no hitting civilian targets. A million 155 shells a week. Tomahawks. Predator drones. Hell, even F-15s. I agree, end the war, but end it in a Ukrainian victory with their borders restored.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Tankies entire world view is formed around hating the US.

      They will glorify terrible regimes that literally commit genocides and straight up murder thousands of innocents just because that regime is in opposition to US influence.

      They use left wing language, but they do not care about leftist issues. They do not care about disabled people getting focibly euthanised, about anyone who dares critique the regime being forcibly silenced, about minorities being genocided (unless the US or NATO does it), that their “socialist states” literally have billionaires while others starve. They think it’s all US propaganda. (Alternatively, they’ll admit part of it and say it’s for the greater good).

    • glassware@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’m not a tankie, but I probably am what everyone in this thread is calling a “tankie”, so here’s my answer:

      Yes, it is extremely bad that Russia invaded Ukraine. The ideal scenario would have been Ukraine quickly repelling the invasion when it happened. But we don’t live in magic fantasy world where everyone gets what they deserve. We live in the real world, where Ukraine cannot possibly defeat Russia in a war. The option which saves the most Ukrainian lives is a negotiated peace, with Russia getting much more of what they want than we would like.

      All that is achieved by pouring more weapons into Ukraine is prolonging the meatgrinder for years, wiping out an entire generation of Ukrainians and risking a global nuclear war.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        Ukraine had a negotiated peace before the 2022 invasion, after the 2014 invasion. Why would a 2025 negotiated peace be any more reliable?

  • pfm@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’m really curious how or why it works. Do they hate US so much that anyone against the US seems a hero to them, despite being off the same kind but pretending to be a communist/socialist?

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        Are they saying that the U.S. was preparing Ukraine for war in 2014… Which Russia had started moving their forces in 2013 and started the invasion in February of 2014. It’s like how people try to say “well Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if Trump had still been president”… When Russia mobilized their troops and equipment and marched them there for the invasion while Trump was still President.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      There is rarely, if ever, support for Putin. What is more typical is a recognition the USSR was a better entity than both what it replaced and what replaced it. So there is usually the connection that the US is the reason Russia is the way it is, which is usually lauded as ‘USA bad’.

      So even though America was the global superpower after the fall of the USSR: Putin, (or at least someone like him), was wanted in power. ‘Keep rootin for Putin’ wasn’t just a pundit book 20 years ago.

      All in all when the goal is eradicating communism at all costs, you wind up with war mongering right wingers in their stead: and that’s the perspective every communist I have interacted with has come from.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      A surprising portion of people in the northern hemisphere think that a person having lots of money is literally exactly the same thing as a person having lots of blessings from [deity]. They see that Russia is run by oligarchs, and that since those oligarchs command lots of currency, they are inherently chosen by [diety] to always be correct.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    MAGAts are either too stupid to realize or too fragile to acknowledge that they’re getting ass-fucked by putin. It’s just pathetic.

    • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s so bizarre to see those old Soldiers of Fortune readers, with their “Better dead than red” tee shirts, all now rooting for Russia.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 days ago

      Are you aware the Biden administration hasn’t spoken to Putin’s staff in two years?

      Is there, in your analogy, a macho, straight, totally non anal-sex-related kind of dignity in that refusal to communicate with a nuclear adversary?

      I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov. Is that me just going to town on Putin’s veiny cock? Is this whole thing just a big revealer of who’s really gay and who’s not?

  • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    perfectly agree with the meme, that said I’ve tried to make the same argument to people IRL and their response usually is “well Ukraine provoked them by trying to join NATO” and being the absolute dumbass that I am, I can never come up with a decent answer on the spot.
    does anyone have a cool one liner to use or am I stuck with having to explain the various geopolitical issues

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 days ago

      The idea of Ukraine joining NATO was literally unimaginable before Russian aggression. After the fall of the soviet union there were multiple agreements like the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine and Budapest Memorandum that basically established Ukraine as a sovereign and neutral nation under the protection of the west and east. Even after Russian interventions in Ukraine and finally the taking of Crimea, NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.

      Also if Russia truly cared about NATO expansion, how come we barely hear anything about Finland and Sweeden? I occasionally even forget they’re a part of it now.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.

        I sometimes think that it was exactly because they expected things to go as they did. If they let Ukraine in, they would need to weasel out of helping help, after all

      • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Shows how little u know. Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
        Then zelensky tried to get nuclear weapons.

        Again - don’t follow msm, they have an agenda.

          • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t care about Ukraine. I don’t want my money going into military to support a country that has universal health care while I still do t have universal health care.

            Fund universal healthcare, not Ukraine or Israel.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              6 days ago

              I think you need to learn how the Military-Industrial Complex works, because if weapons aren’t going to Ukraine, and it sounds like they won’t, you still won’t get your socialized medicine. Especially not in an oligarchical fascist dictatorship.

              • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                6 days ago

                We the people should get stubborn and refuse to support the goals of military industrial complex as long as they keep refusing us our goals.

                I get absolutely nothing from Israel achieving it’s goals of killing brown neighboring people and clearing space for themselves. Nothing.

                Ukraine - u know what! I don’t care about it. Just cut a deal for mutual management of Ukraine and equal economic access. I don’t care about Ukraine winning or Ukraine being a strong country in eastern Europe. I do not care. It’s outside of my interests as a private citizen, only military industrial complex wants that war.

            • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 days ago

              Fair, but it misses the trees for the forest. The US already pays WAY more for healthcare than any other country. The money is literally there, just mismanaged. While I feel your frustration, simply cutting aid to allied countries won’t change anything domestically.

              • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                6 days ago

                They are not allied countries for me.
                Israel is a genocidal regime and Ukraine is just a shithole in eastern Europe.

                I don’t need these as allies.
                I get absolutely nothing, 0 from funding them. Cut them

                • 0ops@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Really? You’re going to complain about one country’s genocide and justify another in the same sentence? At least be consistent

        • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          6 days ago

          Citation needed.

          The Ukranian constitution has no amendments even mentioning NATO.

          And Zelenky demanding nuclear weapons is a recent development. So not “tried” but “trying right now”. Not even the Russians claimed such prior.

          And I don’t watch MSNBC or whatever else “msm” is supposed to be. Bold of you to assume I not only watch American news, but also a specific broadcaster. That’s got to be like a less than 50% chance.

          • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days ago

            MSM is mainstream media rather than a broadcaster. I actually hear it a lot from conservatives who are somehow convinced that Fox News isn’t mainstream media despite being the USA’s most watched network.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.

          Everyone knows that’s how becoming a NATO member works!

          The EU works that way too! You tell them you want to join, make it super official that you pretty please want to join, and then you’re in!

    • Emanothep@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      6 days ago

      The husband who beats his wife analogy might work. “She deserved it, she thought about going to the police” Another thing, even if it was predictable doesn’t make it wrong to help Ukraine no matter what.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      It basically comes down to this: being a sovereign nation means being allowed to choose your own alliances.

      Calling it a “provocation” is denying Ukraine sovereignty over their own country.

      • Iceman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        Which is fundamental misunderstanding of international politics according to Political Realism. Hegemonic powers never care about these de jure arguments anyway and will practicality always act in accordance to int’s own intressets, leaving weaker nations to navigate it.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

          Hegemonic powers

          You can just say Russia you know. And yes, we know Russia doesn’t care about de jure arguments, they only understand power and violence. De-jure arguments are just a tool to them to give talking points to useful idiots in the West, in order to sow division and weaken us.

          Political Realism

          The question really is: do we accept a world where a third-rate regional power gets to trample all over its neighbors, using unimaginable violence and cruelty if those neighbors refuse to act as submissive client states?

          From a moral and legal point of view, it’s a no-brainer to argue that we should not accept this, but even from your a-moral “real politik” point of view we should not accept it either because it goes squarely against our own interests to let a rogue state Russia regain its former superpower status by conquering major client states. Europe and the US are much stronger than Russia, so even your Political Realism dictates that we should help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression.

          So yeah, there is no world in which “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is a valid argument. If you think there is, you can burn in hell with Kissinger for all I care.

          • Iceman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 days ago

            You can just say Russia you know.

            Alright. Consider it done and now your response is some sort of recognition that that what i said is the case but this well established, hundreds of years old field of political theory is devilish trick by our enemies to devise us. Which does nothing to strengthen your shallow view on national sovereignty.

            As already hinted at: Political Realism is a fucking theory of international relations. It’s used to explain things in reality. So you have to understand that it’s true for every hegemonic power. It’s not unique to Russia. Do you think that the US lead invasion of Afghanistan was respecting their sovereignty? They had no obligation to extradite Bin Laden and we got to see what it meant to not dance to their pipe. The list can go on ad nauseam, we have a couple of thousand years of ‘whatabouts’ here. There is no need to pretend that this is some weird trick of our enemies to divide and fool you, it’s an observable fact about international politics. And it absolutely does you no favors to have this self-sealing mind in the face of it. Weaker nations have always, and will continue, to curtail their own sovereign choices in favor of navigating the interests of greater powers and kept as much sovereignty as they can. Sure they have the radical free will to do anything, but in reality things happens as a result… even if you don’t like it. And hence a field of science to understand this process, that looks a-moral due to a lack of having it observed.

            Heck, I see that you sort of get the principles of the political theory. As you said, it’s in the west interest to not have Russia attack her neighbors. So it manages to describe both Russias actions and the West response to it. It will even describe the limits of our support.

            So a better counter to “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is to say yes, but I want a want a weak Russia.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      “So a nation is not allowed to make its own decision about defense or else Russia just gets to have it?”

      “Nations beg to join NATO which is very reluctant and has a long drawn out entry process”

    • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      And the annexation of crimea was not provoking and pressuring them to search for defense from NATO?

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    You forgot the person standing to the other side saying, “But what about that time when America…!?”

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 days ago

    Red-painted fascists just can’t help themselves. War is Completely Justified Resistance And Blowback until someone actually fights back, at which point it’s Pointlessly Extending The Conflict

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    For the fucking tankies and MAGAts, if the French and King Louis XVI would have turned their backs on the US colonials from 1775 to 1783, the Red Coats would have crushed your rebellion and you would have been another Dominion like Canada. Hang on, someone press reset.

  • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Just „take your land“?

    Looks to me also like „destroy your culture“ and „torture, maim, rape and kill your friends and family“.

    • doomcanoe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 days ago

      Well, they did say “Destroy you and take your land”.

      Though I agree that “destroy” is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence.

  • Pyrin@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I wonder how these people would feel if there were individuals that would argue for thieves to break into their homes and take it over.

    “I don’t want anything of mine stolen! they broke in!”

    “But sir, why don’t you want people to have a place to live in? Make peace with it!”

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 days ago

      Don’t forget… They broke into your house, took over your living room, killed 2 of your family members in there and said “Let’s make an election”. Surprisingly, they won the election in your living room, because dead people can’t vote and they were allowed to vote, too.

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s more like you fight your roommate and his friends come over to bully you. You get some weapon once in a while through the window. Still you are on your own vs 10. Also from outside they instruct you to use your young children to fight.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Wait, why are tankies siding with magas? I’ve been intentionally away for a minute, what did I miss?

    Did something major happen in the last three days? Or is this the usual redirection of hate after we’ve found something to rally around?