• fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Reminder: As the aggressor in an imperialist colonialist war, Russia can end the war at any time, just by returning all its troops to its own territory. The continuation of the war is purely the choice of the extreme right-wing Russian dictator and his cronies, who continue to violently exploit the Russian people.

    • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, as you argue without respect to the core of the problem, that is, the US is building a geopolitical tool next to Russia’s borders (obviously against Russia). Even if Putin suddenly disappears, another politician will get support from Russia’s elite and probably easy consent from the Russian public to pursue an anti-NATO foreign policy.

      Nothing will change until the US will change it’s foreign policy towards Russia and stop meddling with countries bordering with Russia.

      Also this does not contradict that Russia is not an oligarchy or Putin is not a dictator, before you call me pro-Putin. Russia can be the aggressor, an “extreme right-wing dictator ship” that attacked Ukraine and at the same time Ukraine was set up like a red flag in front of a bull by the West.

      Remember, there is no reason a country like Russia should perceive the US and its vassal states as friendly. They have no way to assume whatever they do with Ukraine or try to do with Belarus is not against them. In fact, the opposite is true, the foreign policy of the US writes that Russia is their enemy and they will allocate so and so much funds to fight it. You think you need to be a right-wing dictator or an ex-KGB agent to grasp that the goal of the west is to subdue your political class or to turn your country into a gas colony for them?

      But of course, being a biased lib that thinks the world is built like Lord of the Rings or a comic book, what’s class consciousness to you? You believe that there are ebil people like Putin, that suddenly went crazy and decided to invade Ukraine for no reason than being evil.

      Don’t you think if the Russian capitalists are investing so much money into the war because they see Ukraine as a pawn of the US and as a threat? And they will continue fund it if it stays a threat to them, beyond Putin? Nah, they put in billions for the lolz. Because Putin said so.

      • lightrush@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There’s more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There’s even more NATO border incoming that didn’t exist before. Staying, expending more of your people’s lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It’s only making those goals harder to meet longer term.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if

          What do you mean by even if? Where did I say “therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure” or “therefore Russia’s capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term”? Again, what’s up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.

          I mean, who are the winners in a Cold War at all? You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.

          • coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not true. With the USSR went the need to support any social services in the US since there was no alternative ideology anymore, so it was a loss for the working class of the US, which is the majority. It was a rhetorical question, which you didn’t get.

              Also btw, the USSR collapsed not because of internal strife and balkanization, that was the result. It collapsed because of the introduction of profit/market economy.

              • coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy

                • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  LMAO out of all of this you mention the Chernobyl disaster, which makes me think you learn Soviet history through your Britbong “History” tv series. Maybe next you watch as well a Netflix episode on the Russian Tsar?

                  Which Soviet leader betrayed the Afghan government and pulled out the military again, led the Socialist Afghanistan to collapse under terrorists?

                  Which Soviet leader did everything the Americans told him, took IMF loans and put in market elements during an economic stagnation, just like pouring oil into a fire?

                  Ah, I know, Europeans gave a loud applause after his “performance” and gave that traitor a nobel prize and a passport to live in Germany. You would never admit the bastard caused any of this because you guys suck his D in your history lessons.

                  followed by many republics declaring independence

                  you mean re-introduced neofeudalism and cut off partnership with the only country that made sure they have energy, manufacturing and built powerstations, schools and infrastructure with them?

                  Go ask Moldavia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Usbekistan, the Baltics, … how their new independence feels like? Hell, ask Afghans the last time they flew into space?

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I feel like you want to have this argument with someone and, sure, go for it, but I feel like you’re painting OP as the average /r/worldnews poster, and that’s a very rude thing to do. For all I know they might agree with you but the hostility isn’t helping.

        Sorry if this is a little forward or “tone policing”, it just bugged me.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What in OP’s comment did not seem like reddit r/worldnews level to you? And no, I don’t expect to get a reply nor a discussion with OP, it just appears to me that the top comments are usually simple one-liners, so I thought I elaborate this time on an alternative view and mock their (possible) world view that they put out as some common fact

      • socsa@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bro Russia would easily be the wealthiest country in Europe if they weren’t obsessed with being global antagonists. Lmao, they literally say that cringe shit out loud every time they talk about “Anglo Saxons” on Russian media. They know their entire schtick is fucking them over, yet they still do it.

        They could legitimately accomplish every hard and soft power objective they have by just not being like this.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is pretty much how Bush & USA justified pre-emptive strikes against non-existent WMDs. Russia don’t need to see their neighbors as friendly instead of neutral, and they definitely don’t need to conquer them just in case.

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What you said was completely unrelated and now you want to debate a different box. Classic western disinformation

              • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is not a debate, nor was anything I said unrelated. US is as western as it gets and my comment shows contempt towards such actions. The same logic applies to both cases of unjustified per-emptive attacks.

          • InverseParallax@voyager.lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not whataboutism, both are wrong by the exact same standard, in America’s case we should have worked with the international community to ensure Iraq was unable to make progress in WMDs (if that’s what we actually cared about).

            In russia’s case they could just be nicer to their neighbors.

            If I abuse my wife and she leaves me for someone else, that’s not the fault of the wife or other man, that’s on me.

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bro did you even read the initial comment and my long answer to that? My whole point was that russia, was put into a geopolitical corner and had to react out of material reasons, independent of their leadership. You come up with “be nice to your neighbors” as if the USA doesn’t meddle with their peripheral states and tries to put up bases there. LOL I wish I could see the world as simple as darth vader vs luke skywalker like you do

              • InverseParallax@voyager.lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Russia was put in a geopolitical corner.

                By russia.

                They attacked Georgia in 2008, they attacked ukraine in 2014.

                This is why nobody likes them and everybody wants to see them suffer, this is why so many countries were happy to give ukraine weapons if it meant Russian invaders would die.

                Russia is a bully nation, and we get to watch that most beautiful moment, when the bullied stands up and blasts their bully in the face with a himars.

                Putin won’t last through the year, the thunder run destroyed his aura of invulnerability, I look forward to watching him do his Nick II impression.

                Putin wasn’t ‘put in a position’, he’s the ruler of Russia, he has agency, and now we get to watch the Russian people pay the price for his stupidity.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. If this were remotely true, it would have been cheaper to just buy the old weapon systems from Ukraine.

  • Spzi@lemmy.click
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “And, as Putin said yesterday, one of the tasks was to demilitarise Ukraine. In fact, this task is largely completed. Ukraine is using less and less of its weapons. And more and more it uses the weapons systems that Western countries supply it with.”

    Ah, the subtle differences between demilitarization and upgrading to NATO standards.

    If his statement had ever anything to do with reality. Probably just feel-good words directed at the domestic audience.

    • petrescatraian@libranet.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Spzi Ukraine has been demilitarized of soviet equipment FWIW. Imagine how long it would’ve taken Ukraine to do this had it not been an invasion on its land. Thanks, Putler!

      Bonus: Putler has also demilitarized former Warsaw Pact members of Soviet weaponry even further. Can you believe the benefits of it? I’m in tears of joy rn.

      @njaard

    • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can the cowards downvoting the comment I’m responding to and others in this thread respond to this comment? I want to block you guys but you timidly refuse to stick your head out and post your disagreements out in the open.

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

    dying on the ground riddled with bullets haha! You see, I have successfully disarmed my opponent, as they are now entirely out of ammo. Mission accomplished!

    • njaard@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the Kremlin is sometimes able to say things, that, uh, may conflict with reality.