this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
606 points (94.4% liked)

World News

32310 readers
877 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
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, but it's not like every country not filled out in green is actively supporting Russia in the same way. In terms of countries supplying Russia the way the US, NATO, and the EU are supplying Ukraine, I'm pretty sure it's just Iran and North Korea. The US has largely failed to isolate Russia the way it wanted to, but Russia hasn't been able to get the kind of support from its allies that Ukraine has (like, unless there have been some Chinese Type 99s tanks spotted in operation by the Russians that I hadn't heard about, I'm not exactly tracking the front every day).

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but Russia hasn't been able to get the kind of [material] support from its allies that Ukraine has

It hasn't needed to. Ukraine wouldn't be a functional state at all by this point were it not for the tens of billions of dollars in aid as well as all the military equipment slowly depleting the west. Russia on the other hand, has been doing quite well in holding it's own economically despite the sanctions and in holding the literal defensive line against all the NATO weaponry. It's a nonsensical comparison to make.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It hasn't needed to

They've taken arms and supplies from Iran and are currently negotiating with the DPRK. Yes, Russia is bigger and can theoretically out-last Ukraine in a war of attrition on a 1:1 basis, but you shouldn't be hoping for something that prolongs the war.

It's a nonsensical comparison to make.

So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia's side.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but you shouldn't be hoping for something that prolongs the war./

lol, what do you think I'm "hoping" for? Stating the fact that Russia can easily do what it has been doing indefinitely (but Ukraine cannot) has nothing to do with my hopes.

So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia's side.

No one ever did any such thing, just noted that support comes in many forms other than military equipment, which Russia has mostly already covered for itself, even if it buys drone parts from Iran. Unlike Ukraine which now relies wholly and entirely on outside help for all of its material need. You changed the goalposts for what "support" means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn't what Russia needs. You're just trying to move the goalposts all over the place to make it seem like you have some kind of valid point, but you don't. Even if countries are not sending unneeded tanks, Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists (including any actual leftists, even though so many western "leftists" drink deeply of their overlord's propaganda).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You changed the goalposts for what "support" means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn't what Russia needs.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned here or elsewhere that financial aid was being given to the Ukrainian government in order to keep their civil service paid. South Korea just approved some of that recently.

Whenever anyone in the West brings up "global support for Ukraine" that's what they're mostly talking about, I merely clarified that because people are operating on different definitions of what constitutes "support". When I consider "support for Ukraine" vs "support for Russia", I'm comparing money, arms, and diplomatic positions or comments made by a country's leadership. When I do so, I see:

  • Countries supporting Ukraine with money and/or arms
  • Countries that have condemned the war/invasion and nothing else, maintaining their existing relations with both Ukraine and Russia while also criticizing NATO in some cases
  • Iran + the DPRK, plus maybe Belarus for allowing it's territory to be used

Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line at reflexively supporting anything the United States opposes? Like, I get that the US successfully re-aligned Ukraine's foreign policy over the last decade or two, an unequivocal and blatant expansion of US influence and control, and so a successful Russian invasion would result in undoing that American victory, but I fail to see the benefit of Ukraine being in Russia's sphere of influence for socialists, beyond the fact that Russia isn't the dominant world power. Is that really it? And if so, how is it beneficial to replace one imperialist domination with another?

Doesn't it matter that Russia is arguably more of a neoliberal state in line with the domestic social, economic and political agendas of far-right parties in the US, UK, and EU, than many Western countries currently?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even Saudi Arabia is supporting Russia and they're an American ally

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In what way? I think a lot of people are acting like anyone not actively sending arms or money to Ukraine must therefore be "supporting" Russia. Has the Saudi Arabian Kingdom given any weapons to Russia? Have they given any loans to plug the holes in the national budget while the country engages in open warfare? Or are they just viewing a European conflict as irrelevant to their own aims and goals?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they have timed movements in the oil market to be more supportive of Russian economic needs

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

hmm okay. I mean, they are both OPEC members after all. It sounds like the war just isn't altering Saudi decision making the way the US would like.