• el_bhm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of this justifies Russia attacking a sovereign country, alright. With most of the equipment and uniforms bearing Z, the modern swastika. In mission to provide living room and freedom to true russian people. By committing genocide.

    Also, land mines. Ukraine accused of using land mines. Projections give us 700 years to remove mines in Ukraine. 700. Years. Placed by a country that did not sign the Ottawa Treaty.

    Now. Tell me about them projections. Cannot wait.

    Then call me names.

    And then a troll.

    Or do we do whataboutism again (see the links comment, adding for clarity) and then change subjects?

    Which part of the script are we rehearsing?

      • el_bhm@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What is Russia business in Ukraine’s overthrowing their government?

        How is talking Israel not changing subjects?

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I see this Stoltenberg quote confidently thrown out so often in defence of Russia’s invasion. Do you think Russia has some kind of actual right to invade countries if NATO doesn’t do what it says? Would you be defending Germany if it sent a similar letter to the CSTO and then invaded Serbia?

        • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course it does. It’s a superpower with a right to protect its citizens from the threats of the world’s most aggressive military alliance, making threats to install nukes etc. Do you think the US would behave differently?

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hot take but if the USA invaded Mexico because the CSTO refused to stop accepting members then I would, in fact, think that that was bad actually

            • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              But that’s not a singular scenario. If you want an analogy it would be Russia or China installing nukes on the US-Mexico border and constantly talking shit.

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s the direct comparison to the scenario Russia created when it sent that letter. It’s literally just swapping:

                • The CSTO for NATO
                • America for Russia, as the aggressor with a big military
                • Mexico for Ukraine, as the smaller neighbour that’s not even in the alliance in question

                But let’s not pretend it would be any more just for America to kill hundreds of thousands of Mexicans over nukes stored there. The way America treated Cuba around the time of the missile crisis was basically this, and I would hope that we can agree America was not justified in that. As it is you’re just defending warmongering behaviour because it’s against a side that you don’t like.

                • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  But let’s not pretend it would be any more just for America

                  Nobody is saying it’s justified. It’s predictable, expected and a normal way for a superpower to behave. You don’t climb into the lion cage and whine about justice when you’re mauled. Russia, the USA, whichever is going to act in its interests and the interests of its security. The unjust part is on the aggressor, in this case the USA in Ukraine funding and arming Nazi extremists to threaten Russia for “its interests in the region” and killing hundreds of thousands because it’s “cheap” and a “good deal” for them.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s a free for all, Germany and its friends can do what they want and send Ukraine as many weapons as they like, can’t they? Why have you got a problem with it? Under your logic they’re just doing what world powers do

              • Skua@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh I’m sorry, I must have mistaken your comment backing up the accusation of modern Germany doing Nazi stuff to be criticism of Germany’s actions.

                  • Skua@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay so you do have a problem with it. So what the fuck was with the, “Where did I say I had a problem with anything?”

                    Meanwhile, anybody who thinks that the same country that’s aiding and abetting a literal genocide is also helping people of Ukraine really needs to get their head checked.

                    “Britain supplying the Soviet Union with thousands of aircraft and tanks to fight the Nazis during WW2 was bad because Britain had a colonial empire.” No, these things don’t affect one another. They can, in fact, be evaluated differently.