It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
Minsk 2, like we don't know Russian army went in there with heavy weapons in 2014 and sponsored separatists
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
that by helping the attacked invaded country, the west is somehow making it worse?
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
It was actually propaganda by Britain to help ensure that Irish criticisms of double standard could be dismissed. It's funny how even leftists have adopted this straight up Russiagate lie that "whataboutism" was used against Soviet propaganda. It originated in Britain in the 80s to use against ireland
This is true but it's also not quite why Westerners know the term. That's due to cold warrior propaganda efforts, ones largely done long after the fact to explain why old soviet !snd now Russian) complaints of double standards can be dismissed out of hand. "The experts" (think tank ghouls and those in their orbit) "weighed in" and the term was thus laundered into common use by a selectively gullible press.
It points out the double standards westerners gladly accept in order to favor themselves and disadvantage others. How hollow the rhetoric is. How much rides on accepting propaganda, such as adopting the term "whataboutism" as a way to deflect from valid criticism. That's an old cold war term you picked up, probably from society in general, but it was propaganda to help ensure Soviet criticisms of double standards could be dismissed by Amerikkkans.
The form of this argument is "whataboutism" btw, lol.
But anyways, Russia's presence in 2014 was at best covert and there's little evidence. They did provide some supplies. However, why would this contradict any points made about Minsk 2? Anyone familiar with the diplomatic efforts knows that the West was far more brutal and aggressive, targeting civilians in Donbas, and repeatedly avoided diplomatic solutions. The (ignorant) rallying cry seems to be that Russia should have unilaterally done everything even while the West did nothing and even escalated. They didn't even honor ceasefires.
"Helping" is doing the heavy lifting in this sentence. If it's making the situation worse, it isn't helping, is it? The "it" matters. The "it" from the West is weapons, loans, and auctioning off the country to Western corporate interests. The latter two get called "aid" even though they throw the poorest country in Europe into deep debt and exploitation. The former is weapons, it is direct support for the war, and whether that is "helping" depends on your understanding of where this war is going, what the realistic outcomes are, and what unexplored alternatives exist to propping up the UA military.
The simple version is that UA is fucked. It is not going to win and "reconstruction", if it ever comes from the West, will come at the price of foreign ownership, low wages, and further stripped social safety nets. Since it will lose, the question is really: how long do you want this to go on? How many Ukeainians do you want dead? I want none. The US government will accept any number so long as it hurts Russia. Do you accept any amount of dead Ukrainians so long as it hurts Russia? I don't. I want those people alive.
Sending weapons just ensures more and more Ukrainians dying so that the West can "stick it" to Russia. Not so that UA will win. Not so that the outcome is better. So that the outcome is objectively worse, so long as it's "hurting the right people". And all the while, the less horrible options are kept off the table, which is to say, diplomacy. Both by simply avoiding or preventing talks as early as March last year, but by ensuring the Western populace is unable to accept diplomacy at this point. This is why they tell you UA is winning, that Russians are subhuman monsters, etc etc. So that you support endless violence and think diplomacy is a bad idea.
This is also all before we get to the MIC, which drives war to fill its pockets. This is another of the real reasons the "helping" is happening: so that Lockheed-Martin can sell more weapons, keep more millions, all while children are plunged back into poverty. They steal from our children and our lives so that more Russians and Ukrainians may die, and there's always a new target of the violence ready to go for these bloodthirsty monsters.
Had you decided to listen rather than throw a tantrum, you might have learned these things.
Love this bit
deleted by creator
It was actually propaganda by Britain to help ensure that Irish criticisms of double standard could be dismissed. It's funny how even leftists have adopted this straight up Russiagate lie that "whataboutism" was used against Soviet propaganda. It originated in Britain in the 80s to use against ireland
This is true but it's also not quite why Westerners know the term. That's due to cold warrior propaganda efforts, ones largely done long after the fact to explain why old soviet !snd now Russian) complaints of double standards can be dismissed out of hand. "The experts" (think tank ghouls and those in their orbit) "weighed in" and the term was thus laundered into common use by a selectively gullible press.