this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
35 points (80.7% liked)
World News
32304 readers
400 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.
On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.
A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.
It's simply not credible for a group of countries responsible for constant invasions of other countries to claim to be defending borders or supporting any sort of international law. The US at this very moment is occupying a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine.
That is just what-about-ism. The US doing bad things is no reason to allow other nations to fight imperialistic wars.
Nah it's not just whataboutism, this is a conflict between NATO and Russia. NATO is claiming to have some moral superiority in this conflict, but it's very obvious that NATO is fighting an imperialistic war for control of Ukraine.
Ah, yes of course. How could I miss how supplying the people of a sovereign nation with weapons and intelligence in a defensive ground war against a foreign invader is building an empire. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Ah yes, NATO is just altruistically helping the right wing regime that the west installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the legitimate democratically elected government. 🤡
Even if that were true (and I don't think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.
You don't have to take Putin's word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
That's not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
However, if you don't trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled "Extending Russia" that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
The war could've been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could've been avoided entirely if the west didn't insist on NATO expansion and didn't overthrow the government in Ukraine.
That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn't say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I'll pretend with you it is true.
Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I'm sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I've got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)
It's amazing how people just keep regurgitating these talking points. It's just so incredibly shallow and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the situation. There is no comparison with WW2 here. In fact, the best comparison to make would be Yugoslavia where NATO recognized separatist regions as being independent, and then had them invite NATO to invade and destroy Yugoslavia. That's the actual model that Russia is using in Ukraine.
So you are saying that Russia recognized separatist regions in Ukraine as a front to ultimately destroy Ukraine? And it is ok because NATO does the same?
No, I'm saying that recognizing the separatists regions and then accepting their request for help was the common element. It's quite clear that Russia was not interested in destroying Ukraine as illustrated by the fact that Russia tried to make Minsk agreements for for whole eight years. I don't know why you feel the need to continue making blatantly dishonest statements here. You're not fooling anybody.
Ah, well it was surprising you mention that other part in your comparison so vividly. And I'm not sure where I stated anything at all, aside from the fallacy of what-about-ism in regards to NATO and Russia. The rest you interpreted yourself.
What I don't understand is why "leftists" like you feel the need to vocally support an oligarch and dictator, instead of being able to say that the war in Ukraine is a pointless waste of human lives for which Putin is directly responsible as the aggressor.
Talking about whataboutism is just a way to paper over hypocrisy. It's not a real argument. Then you proceeded to make it crystal clear that you are indeed a hypocrite.
Nice straw man there buddy, cause nowhere did I vocally support anything. What you're being told is that what Russia is doing is no different from what the west has been doing, and that the west is just as responsible for starting and continuing this conflict. Apparently that's just too hard a concept for you to comprehend.
The most incredible part is that multiple people in this very thread tried to explain the situation to you, and you just ignore the facts and continue regurgitating the talking points you've memorized. The sheer anti-intellectualism on display is stunning.
Hypocrisy would be if I blindly excused anything NATO did or held them to a different standard. Which, you may recall, I never did.
Okay so what Russia is doing is the same as NATO, which is bad because what NATO does is bad? Or is it justified and NATO is also justified in their actions?
And yes I would claim you vocally support Putin and Russia, because you seem incapable of critique of a war that he is directly responsible for. And note that I'm not even claiming sole responsibility in that sentence.
And if you are wondering, I can certainly offer some critique of NATO and the US.
Yes, you literally did that with the example of Yugoslavia. At leat lie about something that you haven't done in this very thread.
Meanwhile, the fact that you see rational analysis for the reasons for the war as vocal support for Putin shows just how utterly intellectually impoverished you are.
Please enlighten me how I defended anyone's actions in Yugoslavia or even mentioned anything about that conflict at all.
Rational analysis, where you are incapable of addressing any wrong doing of the one person that declared an offensive war? Please attack me personally instead of acknowledging that maybe it is not so good to march into your neighbors territory and bomb their cities. But you do you. I'm sure you have your reasons.
Oh my bad, it was ristoril_zip that was justifying NATO in Yugoslavia, you just kept talking about whataboutism.
Yes, rational analysis as outlined by one of the most eminent geopolitcal researches in US https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
Using your logic, Mearsheimer must be a Russian propagandist. I'm sure you have your reasons for spreading simplistic narratives about the war that ignore the actual reasons behind it.
I see, it happens, apology accepted :)
Well since you love fallacies so much I will overlook your appeal to authority and just quote the guy, who ever the heck he is.
So yeah. What else did I claim when I said that Putin is directly responsible for the war?
I'm not making any appeal to authority. I'm providing you with well argued and sourced explanation of what actually happened. Notice how you did not address any of the points being made in the article.
Nice cherry picking there because that's not really the point that the article is making is it?
No, why would I address anything of any subtly or nuance if you cannot even agree to the most basic facts. Facts backed up by your own source?
All you have done so far is back pedal when I try to follow your reasoning. So, please come back to me if you are able to critique anything at all about Putin or Russia. Until then it is a waste of time talking to you.
Facts backed by empirical evidence and history. The two things you continue to ignore here.
I haven't back pedaled on anything, but it's clear that an honest discussion is not possible with you. Bye.
pungent desperation in this reply
Desperate to do what? Understand their comparison better? Not sure what you imagine my goal is
What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?
Edit: they're misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that's been trying to degrade Da'esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State
Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da'esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds...? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?
So, y'know, absolutely nothing like Russia's completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.
Do you live in a cave? https://www.barrons.com/news/damascus-says-us-occupation-of-syrian-territory-cannot-continue-e97c5e5a
Updated
proceeded to further embarrass yourself
The US is in Syria against the will of the legitimate government of Syria that's recognized by the UN. This is an invasion and a violation of the sovereignty of Syria. Period.
The fact that you rushed in to try and paint it as something other while bleating about Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine says everything we need to know about you.
I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.
There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.
Amusingly, that was the interpretation I've heard some years ago over at reddit from poles malding about USSR marching to Berlin and kicking nazis out of their country in the process.
I would say an absolutist would be justified in crossing the border if they offer that land back at the end of hostilities in exchange for other concessions.
Even if Ukraine doesn't reclaim all of their land they could offer Russia kursk for some other equal amount of Ukrainian land in any peace talks.
Otherwise if Russia refuses Ukraine is justified in keeping that land.
"The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten"
Napoleon Bonaparte
Not only do you need to strike at the enemy's territories and hold it to win, you need to threaten to keep it if you want to restore your original borders. Going to the peace table with enemy cities your pocket is a classic way to negotiate for your own land back. The more Russian land the Ukranians take, the more likely we will see a restoration of old borders.
Funnily enough you quote the dude that first planned to ally with Russia but get swept into the prototype of modern geopolitics and attacked it, not staying within his fortifications, and that led to him and his empire being utterly and completely crushed. Though unlike current followers of the evolution of the same geopolitical strategy, he at least didn't had ample historical precedence for this madness.