• DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • exohuman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Russia invaded their country with a military with the intent of taking land. What would peace look like?

      • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • exohuman@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • exohuman@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • ChapoKrautHaus [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why can’t Putin stop attacking Ukraine? Why is it on everyone else to stop when Russia is clearly the aggressor here?

            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.