this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
431 points (96.5% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.

I'm sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

Do you have the same position regarding the Vietnam war, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or do you only support whichever side is not aligned with the US?

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)

The Vietnam War? You mean the one where a rebel faction backed by Russia rose up against a smaller, recently established pro-Western government, and the US came to the defense of that government, because if they lost the enemy would surely keep expanding more and more across the entire region, and all the peace advocates were dismissed as supporting appeasement? That Vietnam war?

Yes, we take a similar position on that as we do to this, do you?

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] trot@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I literally said that

Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

Are you aware that it's possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it's a neat little trick called "opposing the position of your own government".

[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

I am.

But do you believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia without NATO's weapon supply?

[–] Sphere@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

He most likely doesn't believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia with NATO's weapon supply, and for good reason, given how clearly this is demonstrated by the utter failure of the vaunted counter-offensive. The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).

[–] InappropriateEmote@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter). [emphasis mine]

They never admit it, but the fact that Russian deaths will continue is one of if not the main reason these NATO dronies are fine with sacrificing the lives of all those Ukrainians they pretend to care about. Spoiler warning: they don't actually care about Ukrainians. But they'll still couch it in terms as if they're "supporting Ukraine." Such "Ukraine supporters" are either completely, pathetically fooled by obvious NATO propaganda or they are just bloodthirsty bigots (or both, which is most often the case).

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] trot@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

No, just as it would be unable to resist NATO in being turned into a far-right paramilitary-led banana republic if Russia were to suddenly withdraw without any decrease in NATO involvement.

But the beauty of the neat little trick above is that if the working classes of both sides correctly oppose their respective ruling classes' interests, we can end up with a scenario where both sides lose - objectively the best outcome for the Ukrainian people, as well as everyone else.

The Russian anti-war activists are clearly holding up their end of the bargain. Why are you not holding up yours?

[–] CamaradeBoina@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Exactly this.

Revolutionary defeatism is the name of the word. Those who should be concerned with Russian imperialism must be russian working class people.

We in the west have to fight against our own imperalists. It's very simple and in the end very logical.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The second you call Russia's actions imperialist you just broadcast that you're someone who just uses words for their impact and not their meaning and you should be completely disregarded in any conversation on the topic

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

TIL invading other countries and annexing their territories does not qualify as imperialism.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It can involve that. But you're using imperialism to "accuse them of what you're doing before they can" by flattening all history and context away.

Russia is defending itself from encirclement. Acting like you're against imperialism rings hollow when you only apply it to an act of resistance to your empire expanding.

[–] Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Encirclement by what? Countries that don't like to suck off Russia anymore?

Maybe Russia should act less like an authoritarian mafia state and then its neighbours wouln't turn away from it. Food for thought

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Mind palace history. Ukraine turned away from Russia when the west sponsored a coup against the legitimately elected government and the regime they were replaced with was pro-west.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Ukraine is not encircling Russia at all.

load more comments (2 replies)