Pure projection. I treat Russia as an ordinary liberal democratic state led by ordinary human people with rational self-interested motives rather than a cartoon villain with an army of mindless robots. My refusal to treat them as fundamentally evil, irrational, or inhuman doesn't suggest that I think they're "good", selfless, or beyond criticism. It means I judge them by the same standards I'd use to judge any similar state with a similar political and economic system in similar circumstances.

I don’t need to like how America acts to also not like how Russia acts.

If you're an American as I am, then your taxes funded the 2014 coup of Ukraine, the ongoing war on Donetsk and Luhansk, sabotaging the Minsk agreements, and prohibiting a negotiated end to the ongoing conflict. You're not some unbiased neutral observer if you're pretending to claim "both sides bad" while actively funding and voting to maintain the war and block every local attempt at peace. Absent continuous US intervention for over a decade, this war never happens.

I don't care where Russia and Ukraine decide to put lines on a map between them. That's exclusively up to the people that actually live there, and Euro-Americans like me aren't entitled to an opinion about it. I care that my government stop using money generated by my community's labor to murder the people that live there.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I only agree that we shouldn't view Russia or Russians as fundamentally evil of dehumanize them with language like "orcs". But really... do you view Russia as a liberal democratic state? I'm sorry but are you out of your mind? And surely they are not led by ordinary people but by a class of oligarchs under the lead of the godfather of this mafia state.

Also you say you don't care about border disputes between countries. You're wrong that this is up to the people sharing this border. Legally that's a very ignorant statement as there are very good reasons that the UN member countries are extremely reluctant to accept any changing of borders, especially not by force. International law puts emphasis on stability of borders. Also it makes border conflicts every countries' business. So yes: Even as a Euro-American you're very much entitled to have an opinion about it and legally it's your countries' duty to have a stance on it. No one is on the sidelines here.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

do you view Russia as a liberal democratic state? I’m sorry but are you out of your mind? And surely they are not led by ordinary people but by a class of oligarchs

All liberal "democratic" states are ruled by a class of oligarchs/capitalists, and not by ordinary people. Why are you citing evidence that's perfectly compatible with a liberal "democracy" as if it was somehow at odds with it?

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

That might be the case in the US where capitalists have much more influence over election outcomes and politicians themselves are often part of dynasties that accumulated enormous wealth. This is however not comparable to many European countries. Sure, you have capitalists in all capitalist societies. But their direct influence on election results is much smaller and politicians are very often ordinary people and not obscenely rich or privileged by their ancestry.

A whole different aspect is that these ordinary people, once they came into power, lend their ears way too much to capitalist interests and the likes of lobbyists, often ignoring the problems and needs of ordinary people and focussing instead on catering to the industry.

The people could however not vote for these politicians if they realized that their policies thwart their own interests. If they fail to do so, it's their own fault that the conditions for the majority are not improving. How can you fix the stupidity?

[–] Skua@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

I treat Russia as an ordinary liberal democratic state led by ordinary human people with rational self-interested motives

It means I judge them by the same standards I’d use to judge any similar state with a similar political and economic system in similar circumstances.

Do you? So let's say the UK decided to funnel weapons in to Ireland to restart the Troubles and then sent tanks in to annex Donegal. Would you be similarly opposed to arming Ireland against a much larger and better-armed neighbour? After all it'd hugely expand the UK's exclusive economic zone at sea and significantly reduce the length of the border to defend against Ireland, it seems beneficial for Britain. I don't know about you, but I'd hope someone would back Ireland up in that situation.

If you’re an American as I am

I'm not

the 2014 coup of Ukraine

Good job Ukraine has had two elections since then huh

the ongoing war on Donetsk and Luhansk

It is interesting how so many of Russia's neighbours have pro-Russian separatist movements that always seem to have Russian backing

prohibiting a negotiated end to the ongoing conflict

What leverage do you think Ukraine's supporters actually have to prevent a peace? They'd stop supplying it weapons? Well you apparently want them to do that anyway. Presumably that's because you think Ukraine can negotiate peace without being armed enough to fight Russia. In which case these peace-blocking supporters have no leverage with which to block peace.

Of course they have even less leverage over Russia, which could end this war tomorrow by literally just fucking going home

You’re not some unbiased neutral observer

I didn't claim to be unbiased in the slightest. I am openly pro-Ukraine here. Because I'm generally against countries invading their neighbours and killing hundreds of thousands in order to annex territory, no matter how beneficial it might be to the invader.

Absent continuous US intervention for over a decade, this war never happens.

This is literally just American exceptionalism for people that don't like America. Other countries also do things. Russia has a track record of exactly this kind of thing.