• surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        54 minutes ago

        I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 minutes ago

            The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA & Mossad ever since.

  • androidul@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    based man, I’m so sad about this… hope EU+UA will forge an even more powerful alliance!

    • shawn1122@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      US is in a state of slow implosion. Rest of the world needs to look at collaborating while excluding the US.

      My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.

      I strongly encourage all nations to begin violating US intellectual property rights. Nations like India already do so with pharmaceuticals.

      Eventually other nations will need to take on the mantle of tech and pharmaceutical research and development and we don’t want to live in a world where all this progress is lost.

      Americans have chosen to nuke their own democracy and we need to minimize the damage done to the rest of the world as much as possible.

      • menemen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.

        China will take large chunks. But I think we will also see a decentralization as china won’t be able to take it all. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil and so on will probably increase their regional soft powers a lot.

        This process also already started years ago, but will be catalyzed by this.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Everyone, please report racist comments like these. There’s no need to respond to them.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          59 minutes ago

          Standard blue maga comment, blaming all the US’s problems on foreigners, and claiming that trump is a “russian dog”, and not a standard white supremacist / imperialist in the tradition of all US presidents.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If Dems didn’t think it was debt then maybe they should have sent weapons gifts instead of weapons loans.

      Gringos might fall for the good cop bad cop shit but the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month and we know that Dems build the bulldozer and wail when Republicans wreck shit with it.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        50 minutes ago

        … the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month …

        i’ve always wondered if this is because of the suffering it’s causes; you remember injuries that others have visited upon you, but you forget them easily if you’re the one causing the injury.

  • rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Funny wojak faces but to clear up an apparent misconception here, Ukrainian weren’t fighting for abstract concepts like “freedom” and Democracy", they were fighting to stop Russian soldiers from killing their families, raping their children, and burning their homes to the ground.

    I hope this helps!

    • johny@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Ukrainians were/are still fighting to defend themselves from an illegal invasion. But America sees and has always seen Ukraine as a proxy to weaken a geo-strategic rival. NATO was not realistically on the table as long as the conflict in the Donbas was ongoing (it would have immediately triggered art.5) to keep promising NATO instead of working on a more realistic path to peace has probably caused the death of 100000s of Ukrainians. And just as with many other imperial proxies in history, the proxy is left to deal with the fallout while the empire retreats to the metropol and prepares for the next conflict.

    • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      107
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      I think you’ll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians “fighting”) to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        72
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        21 hours ago

        long before Russia went in

        There’s a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko’s government

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          58
          ·
          edit-2
          10 minutes ago

          The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.

          Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn’t have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.

          • Skua@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            20 hours ago

            If America’s goal was to put Svoboda in power, they didn’t do a very good job of keeping them there, did they?

            I have read the Nuland transcript. She’s talking about the existing leader of the opposition. Of course she said Yatsenyuk was the guy, he was the goddamn leader of the opposition. He was the one guy avalable with the best democratic mandate at the last election. Yanukovych even offered to make him prime minister at one point.

            Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?

            Perhaps if Russia was so concerned about casualties in the Donbas, it should not have invaded and caused hundreds of thousands more casualties.

            • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              40
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just… quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money? America doesn’t give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they’ll take anyone who’ll toe the line.

              I want to give y’all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we’re stupid but sometimes I think there’s a more obvious answer.

              • Skua@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                40
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                20 hours ago

                Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU. The US didn’t need to do a damn thing to influence that, a long history of Russian imperialism did it all for them

                America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan (pg 167). They simply did not spend “all that money”, because a single digit millions of dollars a year is a rounding error in the US budget. American spending on Ukraine in 2013 was 0.00024% of the federal budget.

                • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  23
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan

                  Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/

                  With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.

                  Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.

                  The US didn’t need to do a damn thing

                  Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it. Most of all I yearn that y’all see it.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  26
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  19 hours ago

                  If Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU, then why did they democratically elect Yanukovych, which the US subsequently couped in coordination with the Banderites?

                • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  15
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 hours ago

                  American spending on Ukraine in 2013

                  Good thing we’re talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.

                  So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?

                  Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized. What’s more: there’s ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.

                  In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a “war against russian separatists” as an example of a successful psychological operation.

              • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                10 hours ago

                You are backing the Russian invasion of Ukraine which they did to steal minerals and you are criticizing the US doing the same now that POTUS is a Russian asset?

        • AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Imma be honest with you chief the amount of times I come here for funny leftist memes and then see a bunch of pro imperialistic takes or starting school yard “nuh uh your crimes are worse then my crimes” is so draining.

          I get that when you gather a bunch of people under one banner of a nuanced concept you are gonna get a range of people from mild mannered to fanatical about it.

          Like this must be why people throw around “othering” loaded terms like tankie and liberal in here.

          This is why I wish it was just high level concept lefty memes, cause you’ll never get satisfying low level discussion online, just high level screeching and slap fights. So now I just try to not engage, just look for memes to talk to people IRL about instead.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    21 hours ago

    If it was simple mob extortion it would be reasonable. Zelensky originally agreed when he thought the deal would be to pay for American protection.

    But Trump wants the money AND wants Ukraine to surrender. Trump is a stupid mob boss who doesn’t understand why “Pay me and I’ll let the rival gang burn your business.” isn’t going to be accepted.

    • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Trump works for the rival gang though. He’s just demanding the minerals so the dipshits will blame the USA instead of Russia. Putin gets what he wants to steal and he looks good in the eyes of the pro-authoritarian class traitors in this thread.

    • veroxii@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It’s confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.

    • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      15 hours ago

      To me, we are back to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, except this time it’s Ukraine instead of Poland and the US replace Nazi Germany…

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I am once again begging liberals to learn any history other than WW2. (And ideally actually learn about WW2 as well)

        • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Fair point… Don’t know much about history…

          But I know that I love you

          And I know that if you love me too

          What a wonderful world it would be

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        Español
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        In my humble opinion, this is nothing like the Molotov-Ribbentrop. Molotov-Ribbentrop gets a lot of bad advertising due to cold war propaganda, but even western leaders in the west at the time like Churchill admitted that the Soviets had no other option (if you want evidence I have plenty of reference, feel free to ask :)

        The Soviets spent the entire 30s warning of fascism and trying to build mutual defense agreements with France, England and Poland and they refused systematically, even when in 1939 the Soviets offered to send 1 million troops together with artillery, tanks and planes, to the Polish and French borders on exchange for a mutual defense agreement, but the French and English ambassadors received orders not to engage in actual negotiations and just to postpone the agreement, since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.

        Either way even if you fundamentally disagree with what I’m saying, what was the alternative? Poland was going to get steamrolled by the Nazis with or without the soviets controlling the eastern part of it (as proven by the fact that soviets started invading some weeks after the Nazis). What’s more desirable, half of Poland having concentration camps, or the entirety of Poland having concentration camps?

        All of this could have been prevented in my opinion if western countries agreed to engage the Nazis together with the Soviet union, as the soviets suggested as an alternative to the Munich agreements. So the lesson in my view is: to fight fascism, listen to socialists (who are the ones who actually defeated most Nazis in the eastern front)

        • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Fait point. Let’s put it that way: Trump is trying to share Ukraine’s resources with Russia the way laymen understand Nazi Germany and USSR agreed to devide Poland’s territory in 1939.

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Not to defend the flawed comparison with Trump’s treason, but that’s a very useless take on the M-R pact…

          Stalin could have

          • not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear
          • not attacked the Poles from the rear
          • not murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles after high-fiving the nazis after having succesfully attacked the Poles from the rear

          I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable than, well, actively teaming up with the nazis

          edit: list layout

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            Español
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Stalin could have not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear not attacked the Poles from the rear

            Again, please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets.

            murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles

            I don’t think those numbers are honest, can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high

            I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable

            Again, how is tens of thousands of deaths in occupied Poland (many of which were Nazi collaborators and bourgeois Polish nationalists) preferable to Nazi occupation? Or can you think of an alternative to either of these two options?

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets

              There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis

              can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high

              Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)

              But I presume that if you’re the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles “must have deserved it” in one way or another, then that number probably couldn’t be high enough anyway

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn’t exactly in Russia’s interest.

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        7 hours ago

        These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.

          • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            7 hours ago

            They were fine with Ukraine trading with other European nations but weren’t ok with them not wanting to be under Russian control.

            Remember Ukraine traded in nukes to get protection from Russian imperialism.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              They weren’t under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.

              • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                6 hours ago

                What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there.

                By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?

                While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.

                Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?

                In 2008, the combined wealth of Ukraine’s 50 richest oligarchs was equal to 85% of Ukraine’s GDP.[3] In November 2013, this number was 45% (of GDP).[

                In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?

                  As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?

                  While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.

                  Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn’t the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.

                  Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?

                  The credit goes to the US and it’s pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid

                  In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.

                  In reality, the reason for the coup is that certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US. The US will now get a return on their investment when they take over whatever resources left in Ukraine that Russia doesn’t take.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.

        Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.

            But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.

            What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.

        • Grapho@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.

          Quote:

          When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.

          Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 hours ago

      No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.

      • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.

        Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        9 hours ago

        This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia’s ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.

        The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine’s future.

        It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism

          Leftist: “Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop.”

          Radical Centrist: “You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler.”

          Leftist: “Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza.”

          Radical Centrist: “More antisemitism! You’re only proving my point.”

          Leftist: “War is Bad.”

          Radical Centrist: “Just what a Fascist would say.”

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          9 hours ago

          No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.

          This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.

          • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            9 hours ago

            To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin’s invasions/actions not just you specifically

            Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.

            No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I don’t see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it’s important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.

              • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.

      The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.

      The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia’s imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia’s role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia’s agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.

        • sus@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.

            • sus@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              6 hours ago

              what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into “blossoming democracy”, especially in the minds of the russian people.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                5 hours ago

                What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.