Vietnam showed that the public is a great threat to the war effort. Governments will not allow media to show what warfare is really like nor how the war is actually developing.
Liberals have never forgiven wikileaks for showing American soldiers celebrating the deaths of civilians, and during Obama’s presidency no less! “But do you mean to say that the adults in the room murder people for money? But that’s absurd! That would mean that American society is just run by a glorified psychotic mafia! And that I’ve been helping them commit mass murder my entire life!”
that’s absurd! That would mean that American society is just run by a glorified psychotic mafia! And that I’ve been helping them commit mass murder my entire life!”
Two time Medal of Honor winner and he’d say it was to push America interest abroad, in a bad way.
Americans were mostly against Vietnam because a bunch of their family and friends were coming back in bodybags
I don't think any amount of Ukrainian casualties would make any big difference in American perception
The likely western reaction to realising the scope of the carnage would probably be an even more fervent war craze: "Evil Putler genocided a hundred thousand innocent Ukrainians! We must give Ukraine a death star so they can guard our Aryan garden from the Asiatic hordes!"
Americans were mostly against Vietnam because a bunch of their family and friends were coming back in bodybags
And because the draft was more "impartial" in the sense that middle-class white people were sent to die instead of the "volunteer" military we have now where recruiters target poor and disenfranchised minorities to become the foot soldiers fed to the meat grinder while the officers are still upper-middle class college graduates (especially those from the places like the Naval Academy, West Point, or the Air Force Academy).
We saw with the second Iraq War that Americans didn't really care too much because the well-off upper middle class people just sent their kids to college while the poor black and white people got sent to die in Iraq.
Like you said, Ukranian casualties don't even matter so I guess this is the evolution of imperial warfare (impartial draft > volunteer army > foreign proxies).
Actually the draft made the composition of the army much more poor/diverse in racial backgrounds. The enlisted army being entirely or primarily poor people in America is a myth and complete pro-soldier cope. American soldiers are richer than the average American, and they primarily come from a caste of upper middle class career warriors from career warrior families.
infiltrate it and impregnate you.
Sometimes literally when they have too much fun
Only when the empire is forced to use conscription. As long as they can use mercenaries, proxies, intel officers and enlistees then there will never be a public mass movement against imperialism. Americans are just too chauvinist to care unless their skin is in the game.
Literal Ukrainian living in the country on the verge of being drafted into the meat grinder: pls stop the war
Huge brained liberal who is better than them: Sorry sweetie, time to go die to own PUTLER
It wont end. They ended Afghanistan to live out thier Cold War Nazi's revenge against the commies fantasies and turn Ukraine into a burn pit to clear inventory of trillons of unused equipment. The soil and water in Europe's bread basket will be contaminated for 100s of years. Food prices will skyrocket. The European "way of life " will end to support the inflationary costs of the wars and no western political candidate will ever be able to point to Europe as an example of what's possible under the crap-it-all-ist system ever again.
Once they get bored of that they'll instigate a formal 3rd world war in the 2040's to stop any peace divided.
They did a coup in 2014 with the help of Nazi militias.
Nice condescending ableism at the end there. Libs stay classy.
but how are you going to then shit on an extremely popular people's movement that ousts the entrenched power system?
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces. This is evident by the fact that the grassroots protest leaders where shut out of the new government to make space for neo-Nazis handpicked the US state department (you can hear Victoria Nuland say "fuck the EU" around 10 mins into this video before selecting the new Ukrainian cabinet).
And hey, I too used to be a smug liberal who looked down upon everyone who wasn't in lock step with US propaganda, but if you're trying to convince people of something I'd recommend you don't bookend every comment with reddit-ass insults to people's intelligence.
was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people
That's seriously
, like how was it a popular movement when the next president was a literal billionaire oligarch who supported the protests?Wasn't that guy voted out as soon as there were formal elections though?
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces.
Nevertheless, that still means there are millions of Ukrainians who would prefer association with the EU over Russia. I think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted (however misplaced we might find it) to be in the EU and aligned with the US?
Agreed, but I think it's also important to specify that the coup refers to how the US Ambassador basically hand-picked the provisional government that ended up in power immediately after, and not the protests that started after the initial announcement that the EU deal was off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
I like this video for this very reason. It unequivocally states that NATO's eastward expansion provoked the Ukrainian invasion without regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted... to be in the EU and aligned with the US.
I think that implication mistakeningly conflates the protests with the resulting coup. The protests had real popular energy behind them and spotlit grassroots leaders (until the western-backed literal Nazis took center stage). The coup pushed those people and their interests aside in favor of whoever Victoria Nuland favored.
And if I recall, the Nuland picks were voted out first chance the Ukrainian people got.
None of this refutes what I argued above, that the protests were quickly taken over by right wing groups propped up by the West, with the new government handpicked by the state department:
That probably would have been more convincing if I didn't personally know people who took part in the revolution and then fought Russia,
Cool are they happy with Victoria Nuland selecting their government?
or if Zelensky didn't have sky high popular support,
I haven't seen an approval poll inside of Ukraine for a while but the guy banned opposition parties so it's not like you'd have any other political option at the moment lol.
or if he wasn't Jewish.
Seriously very funny to pretend like a Jewish president wipes out the neo-Nazi reality of the Azov battalion.
the insults are just to amuse myself, and because you deserve them.
Whatever gets you off then, I guess.
Zelenskyyyy's approval ratings were in the toilet before the war, and wartime approval ratings don't really count to me, that's like saying Dubya was beloved because of how high his approval ratings were after 9/11.
lol, you're just gonna get another comment deleted for ableism, so I won't even bother to address anything you said
Liberalism 101:
Liberals do not argue in good faith. Every time they start JAQing off and question the validity of your claims, they mean to attack your character and have no interest in the claims themselves. It is not contradictory that they ask the same questions again and again, because their questions aren't questions, they're attacks.
Yeah it's called the military industrial complex, maybe you heard of it
Or maybe you actaully believe all those nazis who couped the government in 2014 did it for the "love of democracy" and not for the western paychecks in the form of massive arms transfers
Fuck it doesn't even need to be arms transfers, lord only knows how much dark money is being sifted around this conflict. Hell, Zelensky was already in either the Panama Papers or was it the other one? Who knows how much pure cash is just floating around or weapons are being sold around Eastern Europe.
or was it the other one?
Yeah he was in the Pandora Papers
Zelesnkyy is a hundred millionaire before the conflict. I have to imagine he's in the billions by now, after 150+ billion dollars sent to Ukraine that he's been grafting off of
When do you think the war will end? Just guess at the date. I am curious.
Probably will drag on for a decade until 2032 with Russia slowly coming out ahead via attrition like the Syrian Civil War.
That one's tough to answer. I'm hopeful that they'll reach Tokmak by the end of the year, but I don't know that they'll take it this year. Russia knows the logistical importance of that place, and they'll throw everything at it to retain it. Plus, there's only like 2 months left in the year before fighting conditions get too degraded by weather. So, I'm guessing that the lines will start to stabilize again at the end of October or beginning of November, and we won't see much progress until next Spring.
The good news, though, is that they're gonna be getting a bunch of F-16s from the Netherlands, so that will help out immensely in the next offensive drive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to take Tokmak early on in the year, and then make a push towards Melitopol. Could be celebrating another independence day by the end of next year.
Of course, a lot depends on conditions in Russia. Anything could happen. We've already seen one major coup attempt from Wagner before they stopped about 200km away for some reason. I don't think they're going to try again because they stupidly put all of their upper leadership together in the same plane... but I think it's possible that another coup attempt could happen from a different faction. If Putin is removed or killed, I don't think the war will continue. I think the next guy will just blame Russia's poor performance on the last guy and will call it a day.
Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
That's the F35. The F16 though is outclassed by modern russian jet fighters like SU-27 so it's a moot point. Unless the west is giving F35s it doesn't matter, they're generations old tech that cannot handle S300s let alone S400s and S500s.
Russia has the best anti-air defenses in the world. Period. Also, the F-16s will presumably have to land at some point. When they do land, they can be hit with Russian missiles. Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16. You might be able to keep the thing from crashing into the ground, but beyond that?
I'm sorry, we've all seen this argument before. It was the Bayraktar drones and Javelins, those were the gamechangers. Then the HIMARS. Oh, but the M777s and Caeser howitzers, that'll win them the war! Then the Leopards and Bradleys, which now lie destroyed in minefields, and the Patriots, which are hit by hypersonic missiles (with liberals argue that due to Newton's Third Law, if you think about it, the Patriots also hit the hypersonic missiles). Now it's the F-16s and the Abrams. It's been a never-ending treadmill of the West bringing out weapons and equipment, promising every single time that THIS will be the thing that makes Putin pee his pants and surrender to the Ukrainians. It hasn't happened, and given the appalling deaths and casualties and destruction on the Zaporozhye front these past two months with Ukraine's third army being ground down to scrap, it doesn't seem like it ever will happen.
Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16.
Don't take my word for it, but I think I've read somewhere that Ukrainian pilots won't be ready to fly F-16s until about this time next year at best
Don't forget about cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells
Putin actually outlined it well in his statement in 2022
The offloading of military equipment is just a byproduct
Didn't Putin say that he would only serve two terms as leader and not change the rules to keep power?
For some reason, I just don't trust that guy.
This is the height of liberal "analysis", not a hint of rigor or knowledge of the factional politics or geopolitical pressures that determine what choices are viable for leaders to make
No, instead it's just vibes based politics arrived at thru bullshit personal intuition
"I DoNt tRuST tHaT gUY" give me a fuckin break, say something thats even half way incisive
I recognize that username, it's the same person who defended dropping nukes on Japan over on Lemmygrad.
lmao of course, the opinions these maggots share are all stamped out of a DC think tank template
No matter what, the US state department is always right
these maggots
Agree with everything you say, but let's not do that.
Someone cited a speech Putin gave.
I pointed out Putin has a long history of lying [and other shady activities]
What part confused you?
Biden has a long history of lying and other shady activities, yet you accept his narrative uncritically.
It is true that politicians are not always truthful. Unfortunately you have to educate yourself to determine what the lies are, not just pick a team and a set of lies to believe.
Why did they cite Putin's speech? Did you ask? Did you engage in good faith?
Or did your brain just go, "that's a bad guy, now I don't have to listen and I should fight even more"?
I am once again begging you Marvel brained libs to recognize that Russia is a country not a guy in a costume.
I'm saying the national interests of the Russian Federation are not decided on the whims of an evil madman. And when you reduce them to a single person you fall into self blinding behaviors like completely ignoring a speech to the world about a nation's cause for war when determining that country's motivation for going to war.
Let's try operating at your level for a minute. Taking a stab at that good faith debate I always hear about from you libs.
Are you saying putin is the only person in Russia.
Wait shit that actually makes way more sense as a criticism than anything you've said I'll have to practice more.
This you doing apologia for the murder of 200,000 Japanese civilians and Korean POWs?
Show
I honestly think we're spending too much time and effort debating in good faith with libs.
They constantly bitch were all operating in bad faith, and then it's just this over and over again.
You ask them to explain themselves and they say some reprehensible shit.
More ppb.
Often it's not the ones arguing who come around; it's the ones reading along.
Tens of thousands of Korean slave laborers died in those nuclear blasts my man. The USA has never given a fuck about helping anyone who wasn’t bourgeois. They dropped the bombs to warn the Soviets to stay out. Try to read history that wasn’t written by Nazi apologists.
Not that I doubt you, but really tens of thousands of Korean slaves died from the nukes? I've never heard that before and it seems pretty significant.
It's good that the USA didn't employ unit 731 to kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese/Burmese/Koreans after WW2. That would have been terrible.
The nukes were definitely dropped to save those people.
Wait what
I knew about the nazis BUT FUCKING UNIT 731?!
So, you couldn't actually answer 'yes' or 'no.'
Also, I don't think using 9/11 as an example of ending a war is really all that smart.
Didn't Putin say that he would only serve two terms as leader and not change the rules to keep power?
i honestly don't know
I fail to see from that how it would be in the West's interests for Russia to declare war (sorry, a special military action) on Ukraine
I an pretty sure even Mitch McConnel explained that the war is a "good investment" for the US because it damages Russia with zero risk to American land or soldiers.
Right. Yes. I said that in the very next sentence. It's an investment. The hardware is being spent towards some purpose. But the original guy I responded to seemed to think that we were giving away all our old hardware 'cause we just didn't want to pay for upkeep, which is dumb.
The upkeep of old equipment is part of the cost in the analysis of whether or not to give it away, and the MIC loves any excuse to increase the budget, so I don't think the other person was being dumb.
I'm sorry, did you just imply that Russia invading Ukraine was part of some weird US plot to offload out-of-date military equipment?
The US has legalized bribery, military contractors make their money by lobbying for war, ans politicians see military spending as economic stimulus. The SMO is a direct response to the Westerm side (US vassals) constantly escalating and refusing to implement Minsk 2 during active shelling of Donbas population for 8 years. The SMO itself was announced shortly after a significant uptick in shelling of Donbas by UA.
This approach of constant escalation, of pushing far beyond what their own countries would and havw tolerated, is a function of the MIC. It's a big part of the reason that war is desirable to those making decisions. They frame it as being strategic, a way to increase "national security" and launder a new campaign to "update" arsenals against mounting "threats" (potential peers).
How, exactly, would the US have convinced Russia to invade, in your mind?
Through a decades-long campaign to encircle the country, undermine its trade influence and development, and push hard against red line issues they know will trigger significant responses from them. It is no surprise that poking the bear gets a response and this was all very intentional. Shelling of Donbas by Ukraine escalated massively shortly before the announcement of the SMO, for example.
And did they also convince Russia to invade in 2014, or was that purely Russia's decision?
What invasion are you referring to, here?
Lastly, just to satisfy my own curiosity: were you dropped on your head as a baby?
@Civility!
Silly tankie, Russia invaded Ukraine because Putler is evil. That's it. He's evil and hates freedom-loving Ukrainians because they're the only democracy in Eastern Europe.
This isn't really a post about the news. Try posting this kind of stuff to c/politics next time.
Look at all of the brigading of hexbear in this thread! And by that I mean folks in other instances participating in a thread that was probably on their front page. Can you imagine!?
The Ukrainian will be banned since this is probably the combat footage sub which is filled with people who want to invade the entire world.
Nah worldnews is pretty much the same now. The mods ban anyone with a slightly different opinion on any topic.
IDK, because they only expressed emotions and opinions, and didn't say anything that necessarily contradicts the narrative of the war's purpose, only that it's not as gloriously one-sided as Western Media portrays, which doesn't strike me as all that shocking of a take from someone living in a war zone.
Okay so, with the iraq war timeline, this seems to be getting closer to the point where liberals begin to gaslight us and say they never supported the war.
As someone who is very much pro-Ukrainian in this conflict and has talked to many Ukrainians, anyone who believes the hype that Russia is days away from collapsing (again) or that Russia's army is made entirely of uneducated starving peasants who have never held a gun before is taking crazy pills.
War economies can last a very long time, and this kind of attritional artillery based warfare on both sides (they started with almost the same doctrines) with a contested airspace is an absolute meatgrinder.
Curious, what is your rationale behind describing yourself as pro-Ukrainian.
There's a few different aspects to this:
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.
Finally, there's the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it's different when you share a language and culture.
I think where you are deviating from the wider hexbear opinion here, and also where I think you're wrong, is based in a belief that precedents are meaningful first off. Before this war was even thought about, these realities were already clear to all powerful people in the world. Acting from the basic material assumptions (and proving that they are ALREADY true) is not making them true. Not having nukes has been a death sentence to countries (eventually, without socialism) since the moment the first one existed. This war doesn't impact that nor how rational global actors work. The ability to do "naked aggression" literally never went away, it was just hidden in plain sight with shitty western justifications. Every world power understood this well before this war, and their rational/justifications won't be impacted. Only new material conditions to work from will arise. Russia's loss or success actually only would give 1 major new piece of info to the world: is it possible to offensively take in the Imperial core indirectly without the result being total destruction of yourself? That's what we're going to learn. We learned from Korea and Vietnam that fighting defensively can work. We learned from middle eastern imperial wars that guerilla struggle is possible to slowly tire out the US.
We will Also learn small details about fighting and material and weapons and strategy, of course. But the worldwide impact is literally just "is it possible to defend yourself from US interests WITH OFFENSE?"
Also I agree with CyborgMarx, best case scenario is Donbas is free to choose to be Russian along with Crimea and Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between NATO and Russia after a loss
You've obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.
Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people's willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, "rules-based diplomacy" just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That "just a bit" part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.
The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It's very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it's the honest truth.
As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you're saying with that final sentence is "Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists".
I disagree entirely that that "just a bit" exists at all. Direct imperial wars were limited only by the conditions and interests of the imperial power, and the justifications only resulted in extra work AFTERWARD the decisions were made to make convincing arguments (or find a way to hide the war).
With all due respect, you're not just influences by perspective or lack of impartiality, but by your own interests. Being just west of Ukraine means that the fascistic border for expropriation (I mean from the West, but also possibly from Russia) will come closer the further west Russia can push. You benefit at least minmially from global imperialism by having that expropriation lead to imports on your side. I don't blame you for desiring to not be hurt by that "border" movement, and I have to hope I will stay strong and support my comrades and movement when that inevitably comes to my place and not try to gain/maintain personal benefits. It's always violent, just usually somewhere else.
This article is the best description for my understanding of Fascism: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/
Russia is just as fascist as every capitalist government. But so far, Crimea hasn't been experiencing the violence anymore than any other group and less than from the imperial core when they were under Ukraine. If "more fascist" means more violent and expropriating more", which is in line wiht that essay, then I think Russia is less fascist. They have legitimately experienced less of the expropriation than before. I think Donbas would be the same, and there's a chance that that continues westward as fascism attempts to consume the border regions for profits.
I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word "fascist" means compared to you, which I'm glad you've identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we're just talking about different things. I'll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I'll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.
Yeah my definition is more "niche" but I just fundamentally disagree withe philosophical underpinnings of definition like Umberto Eco gave and such. I think it's clearly a liberal definition lacking in material or dialectical understanding of the world and fails to ever define anything really.
Regardless, definition itself isnt the basis of the convo. If what I call fascism was called "time-location-based-expropriation-interests", we could still have the convo. we're talking about real things regardless of the word. I still think we disagree after that though, unless the essay also convinces you of an evil you didn't previously understand and results in you agreeing with my analysis or so.
I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine
Who cares, socialists in imperialists countries don't support their side in proxy wars, period.
Yeah nah bro the Russian speakers of the Donbass and especially Crimea don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed by a bunch of bloodthirsty Ukrainian nationalists hopped up on fantasies of revenge
Also the "naked conquest precedent" in international politics was already set by the US in 2003, hence the neutrality over this current conflict by all states outside the west and it's puppets
having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have
the US has been doing exactly this and setting up puppet states since the end of WWII, has never stopped for a second, and will never stop until they're forced to. there has never been any other precedent. prior to WWII, colonialism ruled the world.
US wars since WWII:
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Laos
- Indonesia
- Lebanon
- Cuba/the Bay of Pigs
- Dominican Republic
- Korea again
- Cambodia (on the side of the fucking Khmer Rouge)
- Lebanon again
- Grenada
- Libya
- Iran
- Panama
- Iraq
- Somalia
- Bosnia/Serbia
- Haiti
- Kosovo
- Afghanistan
- Yemen
- Iraq again
- expansion of the war in Afghanistan to north-west Pakistan
- Somalia again
- Libya again, this time destroying the country so badly that slave markets opened on the streets
- Uganda
- Niger
- Iraq a third time
- Syria
- Libya a third time because no shit the Islamic State took up residence, who could have seen this coming
the idea that there has EVER been a way to prevent wars without nuclear proliferation does not respect the historical record. states seeking to arm themselves with nukes is deeply rational. Cuba was under constant threat of invasion until the Soviet Union deployed nukes there -- the US refused to negotiate with the Cuban government. then, once there were nukes, what do you know! suddenly the US will negotiate and will agree not to invade Cuba.
I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
I don’t know if he’s a nazi, or just a nazi lover, but the head of Ukraine's military, Zaluzhny, has a bust of Stepan Bandura in his office
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.
sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression
This precedent had already been established before the SMO, compare NATO treatment of Libya with its approach to Korea.
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
This already had precedent when the US invaded Iraq amidst near global condemnation and more or less took Iraq's entire gold reserve like some marauding army sacking an ancient city.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
This also had precedent when NATO invaded Libya, which then prompted the DPRK to nuke up. That's reality. You're a lot more safe from invasions if you have nukes.
In general, your points only make sense if you're focusing exclusively on Europe and ignore the rest of the world.
I agree with your points, but I am far more afraid of what the US gains from winning than what the russians do
(i.e. when it comes to casualties and many other things)
Obviously this is just kinda coming out of my ass, but I'm almost certain that 100,000 people have already died. Can't say what the exact number is obviously, but I imagine it's the kind of thing that the lib media would rather not release because it would dampen people's enthusiasm for it
Maybe Redditors need to have this explained in meme terms to understand.
You, as a liberal, are like Lord Farquaad from Shrek. While you send Ukrainians to die for capital F Freedom (also known as Privatization and Profteering by those pesky RuZZian disinformation bots) you sit back here at your brunch spot saying “Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
Obviously that "Ukranian" is actually a sLaViC oRc RuSsIaN bot!!!!!!!!
