feddit.org

2 points

2 months ago

That is just what-about-ism. The US doing bad things is no reason to allow other nations to fight imperialistic wars.

report

[ - ]

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP

6 points

2 months ago

Nah it’s not just whataboutism, this is a conflict between NATO and Russia. NATO is claiming to have some moral superiority in this conflict, but it’s very obvious that NATO is fighting an imperialistic war for control of Ukraine.

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Ah, yes of course. How could I miss how supplying the people of a sovereign nation with weapons and intelligence in a defensive ground war against a foreign invader is building an empire. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

report

[ - ]

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP

7 points

2 months ago

Ah yes, NATO is just altruistically helping the right wing regime that the west installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the legitimate democratically elected government. 🤡

report

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

Even if that were true (and I don’t think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.

report

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

[ - ]

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP

8 points

2 months ago

You don’t have to take Putin’s word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire?

That’s not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war

However, if you don’t trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled “Extending Russia” that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition?

The war could’ve been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could’ve been avoided entirely if the west didn’t insist on NATO expansion and didn’t overthrow the government in Ukraine.

report

[ - ]

-6 points

2 months ago

That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn’t say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I’ll pretend with you it is true.

Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I’m sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I’ve got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)

report