48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
136 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
These Jets should be going to Ukraine not an Israeli warlord.
Russia is the country imposing the invasion in Ukraine. Russia is the only country that can stop doing the invasion.
Russia is also supporting Hamas. Both wars are part of a global conflict already.
Don't be myopic about it, Russia has been just as manipulative in the Middle East as the U.S.
Who you were responding to mentioned Hamas and you immediately equated that with the Palestinian people. You really can't defend Hamas and Russia in this when this is just a recurrence of the power plays that have historically shaped our current system. There are very few on the "right" side of this.
Did you stalk my comment history too? You would see I'm 100% for the Palestinian people and against this genocide. My point being, if you're gonna run to a side in this you just picked wrong.
Edit: Imperialism is the enemy here not colonialism, which was stopped being used in the 1940's
Whoa, colonialism is absolutely alive and well. Colonialist projects, Israel included, still exist today, and of course many countries that began as settler-colonialism (which is distinct from plain 'colonialism') still exist everywhere, and still keep their native populations marginalized and under attack.
Israel is quite practically the most textbook definition of a Settler-Colonialist state that there is, especially given that they themselves still even use the term "settlements" to describe their continued displacement of Palestinians.
And yet modern colonialism isn't the key topic that needs to be mediated between these two parties. This fued goes 5000 years back to when these two cultural groups shared this exact same land. That's the myopic part of these arguments. Calling them colonists isn't going to settle an ancient blood feud. Bonus points if you recognize that both groups are Semetic and both have committed anti-Semitic crimes.
Bruh, no one in modern day Israel or Gaza is fighting because of 5000 year old feuds. They're fighting because one group displaced and started mass-murdering the other in order to establish an ethnostate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm Brothers killing brothers can only be explained if you take culture and religion into account.
You think that family members (and let's be honest, "ancestral genetic brothers" are not actually family members on any psychological level) only have ever killed each other over religion? Not money? Not land? Only religion and 'culture'? Please.
On a massive scale ongoingly for thousands of years? Yes. Let's bring to light the many attempts at colonizing the Middle East by western powers, ie the crusades or Mandatory Palestine. These attempts were all money and land inspired and respectively very short and unsuccessful. There is no doubt in my mind that Western colonialism has wreaked havoc in the middle East for far too long. But to land those motivations on Jews and Palestinians (those who by birthright the land belongs to) doesn't sit right with me. Let's settle on the fact that Western intervention has been the real catalyst for power struggles there, while the violent puppets that play out the wars on the world's stage are only being made into scapegoats in order to justify the greed and power grabs of outside interests.
Would you like to look into what the minority group and it's situation was like in Palestine before this colonization happened? How the human rights were for this minority group? It was the exact same except the other way. Still keep on about how it's all different now.
I will restate my point that if your taking a side in this that isn't the humanitarian one. You're on the wrong side of history. And back to my original sentiment that calling this an issue of colonization is not getting this argument anywhere.
How do you want us to push for peace there too? Because we have been since the beginning of the war in my eyes.
What do you mean by "won't recover from"? Because they have lost things that can't be recovered since the beginning of the war. Russia is losing things they can't recover too; thousands of its people for example, it's money reserves, its military inventory, its non-military-sector economy. Where do you draw the line for Russia and Ukraine of what is "won't recover from"? Western nations have already committed to helping rebuild the country and especially its destroyed infrastructure.
How is the war in Ukraine "quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict"? Fighting is still only within Ukraine and the border to Russia. Western material support has been the case since the beginning.
I have to assume by pushing for peace you mean Ukraine should accept losing large parts of its territory and human atrocities in order for the fighting to end. Is letting Russia win going to reduce conflict long term though? They'll have more resources to invade other countries next. And proof that it's a worth investment. That works and they win from. There was precedent before the current war in Ukraine, which is why they started this invasion in the first place. Only this time it didn't go as smoothly.
Does your diplomacy include Ukraine giving up land?
I generally stay out of these Ukraine discussions, but Russia is clearly the aggressor.
Unless you can justify what valid reason Russia had to attack Ukraine or what you mean by diplomacy, then it's a non argument.
Russia clearly isn't interested in discussions unless they involve surrendering..
Are you seriously calling a populist uprising a "US backed coup", implying the US had a hand in it, simply because the US ideologically supported their goals?
NATO expansion is not a justification for invading another country, especially a non-NATO one. Ukraine has the right to self-determination and freedom to associate with whomever they want, and Russia doesn't get to tell them who they can or can't be friends with.
I can only assume based on this that you philosophically support the Bay of Pigs operation, as the US saw Soviet expansion near them as a threat.
Putin didnt make his move on Crimea because he was trying to defend Russia, he did it because he knew that his plans to reassimilate Ukraine were threatened by the new Ukranian government. And the 2022 expansion of the invasion just proves that.
I appreciate your willingness to question the narrative and push for peace even while everyone seems to have a real appetite for war. I found this article from 2014 that discusses the US's influence in the 2014 protests. The cited experts are Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. They discuss a recorded phone conversation where two US State Dept officials are going over who they want in power in Ukraine. Snyder seems pretty convinced that the 2014 protests and elections were genuine, regardless of State Department conversations about who they want to win. Then you have McGovern, who has experience in this sort of thing, saying that the CIA does not really do this sort of thing anymore, and so the State Dept does it instead. And as i'm reading, he seems quite convinced that the US was placing its thumb on the scales, and he seems to agree that maybe this should be resolved by everyone coming to the table.
McGovern's most convincing piece of evidence is this:
But I looked it up, and it seems like in 2014, the Prime Minister Yatsenyuk was elected via a parliamentary election where he got 371 of the 372 members that voted. Which sounds suspicious, but you should factor in the other 78 members that were either abstaining or not voting. Is it strange? Sure, but here's another theory: the protests happened with no or very little Western influence, but the elections happened with lots of implied Western influence. There was a lot of crisis and turmoil, protests and corruption combined with Russian soldiers on the doorstep. The Parliament was under a lot of pressure to act swiftly and decisively to ease unrest. So they picked up the phone when the US called, and listened to their advice. In this way, the US got the outcome it wanted, but not by particularly manipulative means. They just offered their advice, and the Parliament listened. And so, all of the anti or neutral-to-Russia Parliament simply fell in line, to bring stability to the country.
Now, I have no evidence of this. This is just my extended thoughts on the matter after trying to understand your point of view. I think the reason many are quick to defend Ukraine's side in this conflict is that Russia has shown itself to be corrupt, fascistic, and manipulative in foreign and domestic affairs multiple times over the past decade or so. And in the context of what has happened and continues to happen, it's hard to be sympathetic to Russia's "position" when they've been shown to argue in bad faith over and over again. It's impossible for us to know what the people of Crimea want because they live under an authoritarian regime. It's impossible for us to make treaties and concessions to Russia because they always break them. Every barrier to peace seems to be created by Russia, so people side with Ukraine, the underdog that they know very little about.
Fire is not sentient. It doesn't strategize. It can't use your feelings about wanting to minimize it's damage against you. Humans can, and do.
How much does Putin pay you?
Because you literally act like a mouthpiece with your constant apologetics for the aggression and war crimes of a tinpot dictator.
You don't get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn't an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
"If you invade us, we'll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars" just encourages imperialist aggression.
Yes, obviously the US is a massive Imperialist power. I don't want it to have those bases, or nuclear weapons, or even a military or government at all, but I sure as hell don't want it to be replaced by an openly autocratic imperialist power that also has all those things anyways, which is what Russia is aspiring to be under Putin.
But that is a completely orthogonal discussion as to whether Force is required to stop malicious actors from imposing their will on others through violent Force themselves. That is, as an anarchist, a basic requirement of human interaction; self defense and defense of others.
What hypocrisy do you think is taking place here?