16
How some of the post-federation Ukraine threads feel like
(lemmygrad.ml)
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
I want you to look at the words "supporting Ukraine" then look at the rest of the paragraph you said after it. Especially the "why is this a bad thing?" part. Compare that question to the rest of what you just said. Really consider the words you typed.
Now tell me if that actually sounds like you "support Ukraine" at all, or if you've just fallen for the same Jingoistic propaganda the US uses to justify all its wars and foreign intervention. Dead Ukrainians are not supported Ukranians. If you actually support Ukraine, you should push for peace, not more weapons to be sold to their government.
Russia invaded their country with a military with the intent of taking land. What would peace look like?
Peace looks like guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality by taking NATO membership off the table and likely ceding the DPR and LPR to the Russian federation at this point.
At this point if Ukraine gained back the DPR it would almost certainly result in an ethnic cleansing.
Exactly this.
So Russia gets to attack a sovereign nation and demand their land and peace looks like just giving it to them along with making sure the country they attacked is open to future attacks? How is that in any way a justified peace solution? What prevents Russia from doing it again?
The war didn't start with the Russian invasion, Ukrainian paramilitaries have used internationally banned cluster munitions in the donbass since 2014. Ukraine could have ensured peace and retained all of its territory by guaranteeing a ceasefire and self-determination for the eastern regions, but they did not.
NATO could have ensured peace by dissolving after the USSR was destroyed, or at least not continuing to expand east as they promised, but they did not.
This invasion is happening in the 11th hour after the total failure of diplomacy at every level. The territory Ukraine would hypothetically be losing by pursuing peace has been contested for a long time.
yes.
And what prevents them from doing it again is that they would have a buffer against NATO aggression, but you probably think NATO is a benevolent peace loving organization instead of a band of butchers and war criminals hell bent on subjugating the entire planet even if it kills every human being on earth.
Ah, silly me, I forgot, history began in Febuary 2022. War is peace, we can't negotiate with the enemy. We just need to keep selling weapons for profit, I'm sure there's no issue with that. Not like a country profiting off this conflict would encourage their citizens to think that Russia is a nation of mindless demonspawn who only understand violence. Just got to keep selling ineffectual and very profitable weapons and fight Russia down to every last man, woman and child in Ukraine. That'll help the Ukrainian people! Much better than trying for that silly peace nonsense. After all, Russia did a bad guy thing. So we can't talk, or discuss terms or try to understand them or their motivations. They the bad guys. It's not like Ukrainian's lives matter anyway, as the average smug American, I can't even point to it on the map! And there's plenty more people to die for our profits when those guys are all gone!
Russia did do a bad guy thing. Ukraine doesn’t want to let them have their land. If Russia was interested in peace, maybe they should have started with it and not attacked a neighboring nation.
No it didnt. it did a goood guy thing. it did a Humanitarian Intervention to Prevent the Kiev Regime from Slaugherting their national Minority in the Donbass ( think Kosovo War) after Kiew Refused the Misnk 2 agreement. Your Just Extremly wrong infromed That you are wrong informed is not you Fault ,It is in the US interest to paint cartoon cersion of its Enemies that Bootlickers then repeat .. that you refuse to inform yourself and run with the stupid cartoon version told to you by the must non Trustworthy party imaginable is your Fault ,.. please grow out of it.. Your might really be wrong informed ....
Wanna check if , this is offical OSCE Report ? Can you see the Reasons for Russias Intervention ?they are Marked there on the Map ...
PS. Propaganda mostly happens to smug people that think it happens to everybody but them .. Never them, they consume Mainstream Media when the Topic is Foreign Policy and consider themself of Elite Knowlede..
You don't even know how completely ahistorical your understanding of this conflict is, while we have dissected it with exacting precision for well over a year now. We have had this conversation endlessly, over and over, with people who have a simplistic and naive view of geopolitics, nationalist brainworms, and a profound ignorance. And it's really wearing thin.
They did start with it. Does "Minsk II" mean anything to you?
faschist beeing prevented from killing their hated minority. this is what peace will look like ,
sorry but the Slaughter of the Donbass will be stopped . And if every last "ukrainian victim" ,will be Married to the Donbass soil by their Cruel High Priest Zelensky , then so be it.. Theres A Material way to Peace (Peace thee day after the Last Ukrainian died ) and a Interlectuall way to peace ( 3th Try ! ) ... Both work , the one you Support will Kill way more then the "Kosovo" Way ,that we support.. its also Inhumane and cruel..
How far do you want to go? Absolute peace would be the end of the nation-state and the use of violence to uphold class society. That's an useless idea for this, though. Maybe a more useful goal for peace is stopping the encirclement, sanctioning, and blockading of all countries. Or not conducting coups to install puppet governments right next to geopolitical enemies. Or at the very least accepting diplomatic solutions to a war when they arise instead of slipping your proxy another check and sending a couple thousand more people to get killed.
In short, we're a long way out from peace, but NATO's actions have arguably put the world in more peril and violence than even Russia's. Even if that weren't the case, unless you're Russian yourself, you probably have a lot more you can do to pressure the NATO countries to stop fighting to the last Ukrainian, rather than somehow pray Putin into surrendering.
Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here? The war would be over in a flash of Putin simply decided to stop attacking.
The war was going on before Russia sent troops in and would likely continue even if they withdrew.
I mean at this point it would almost certainly be ethnic cleansing of the Russian speaking population.
Why do all these other countries always have to bow to these maximalist US demands? Can you name one example over the past 50 years where any country chose to do so and it made things better for them and tgeir neighbors, not just the US?
You're just parroting imperial talking points dude.
Because NATO will use Ukraine as a base from which to destabilize, balkanize, and destroy the rf. That's the answer. Until Ukraine is forced to accept Neutrality and NATO is forced out of Ukraine Russia won't have a defense against NATO aggression.
The point is that there is a zero percent chance of this happening. The world doesn't run on hopes and dreams.
It wouldn't look like millions of displaced, hundreds of thousands dead, and more every day we prolong this and it wouldn't look like right-wing paramilitaries supported by the Ukrainian gov't doing pogroms and shelling Russian-speaking areas as they were in the days leading up to the invasion.
It's impossible for a peace to be worse than the status quo. But in all likelihood, you're looking at a Russian puppet in Eastern Ukraine, a western puppet in Western Ukraine, both selling the copper from the walls to their respective national bourgeoisie.
If Ukraine holds the Russian speaking parts of the country after the war, there's gonna be a genocide. If Russia holds the western part of Ukraine, there's going to be decades of US-backed insurgency.
Of course, this whole thing would have been avoided if the US made its support of Ukraine after the coup contingent on purging the fascists instead of giving them a seat at the table. Later on it could have been avoided by making its support contingent on following Minsk II.
Don't think this is too likely - in your scenario, NATO would likely break up within 5-10 years and Europe would rid itself of a lot US influence.
I think the "decades of insurgency" thing is already set in stone.
Can you conceive of a scenario where the region becomes safer than it was between when the coup got bloody and Russia invaded now that there's 100x more weapons and organized fascists?
I am begging you to go place any 4x game at all and learn what encirclement means.
Peace would look like the removal of the Ukrainian threat to the Russia people
That's actually a fair point. To be totally honest, for me personally, I'm not exactly for Ukraine as much as I'm against Russia, if that makes sense. However, I do recognize that Ukraine got unfairly invaded by another country, and they should defend themselves.
I want peace, but not if that means Russia takes Ukraine against their will by force.
Others in the thread have helpfully outlined Russia's goals for this conflict, but it is important to note that this didn't come out of nowhere one day (even if that is how the western press tries to present it.) This has been escalating since the coup in Ukraine in 2013, Russia has repeatedly tried to be diplomatic, and has had their concerns dismissed. Hell, Russia doesn't even want to be antagonistic towards NATO if they don't have to be (they even tried to join them in the early 2000s).
As others have said, we don't support Russia, we aren't Russian nationalists. We do however, want to try to understand a conflict and why it happens, and if there was any way to prevent it from happening so we can make sure similar conflicts don't happen in the future.
The problem with the western media (US media in particular) is that it tends to just point to another nation and just call them bad guys, like the villain in a movie. This doesn't analyse anything or provide any preventative power (in fact, for the US, it is usually the opposite, they want wars so they can keep their military industrial complex ticking over and making profit off of death and destruction.)
If people uncritically accept that an "enemy nation" is a bad guy, they can easily fall for the next bad guy, and the next, and so on forever. The only way to actually prevent stuff like this is to try and understand why it happens.
If nothing else, your honesty is refreshing lol
Seriously, this is still about 2016 and that Russiagate bullshit for these people
Oh yeah