I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
perfectly agree with the meme, that said I’ve tried to make the same argument to people IRL and their response usually is “well Ukraine provoked them by trying to join NATO” and being the absolute dumbass that I am, I can never come up with a decent answer on the spot.
does anyone have a cool one liner to use or am I stuck with having to explain the various geopolitical issues
The idea of Ukraine joining NATO was literally unimaginable before Russian aggression. After the fall of the soviet union there were multiple agreements like the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine and Budapest Memorandum that basically established Ukraine as a sovereign and neutral nation under the protection of the west and east. Even after Russian interventions in Ukraine and finally the taking of Crimea, NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.
Also if Russia truly cared about NATO expansion, how come we barely hear anything about Finland and Sweeden? I occasionally even forget they’re a part of it now.
In the case of Finland, it’s because they kicked Russia’s ass last time and they would do it again.
Shows how little u know.
Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
Then zelensky tried to get nuclear weapons.
Again - don’t follow msm, they have an agenda.
And you surely don’t have an agenda.
That’s why you come here with lies lmao
Citation needed.
The Ukranian constitution has no amendments even mentioning NATO.
And Zelenky demanding nuclear weapons is a recent development. So not “tried” but “trying right now”. Not even the Russians claimed such prior.
And I don’t watch MSNBC or whatever else “msm” is supposed to be. Bold of you to assume I not only watch American news, but also a specific broadcaster. That’s got to be like a less than 50% chance.
The husband who beats his wife analogy might work. “She deserved it, she thought about going to the police” Another thing, even if it was predictable doesn’t make it wrong to help Ukraine no matter what.
It basically comes down to this: being a sovereign nation means being allowed to choose your own alliances.
Calling it a “provocation” is denying Ukraine sovereignty over their own country.
Which is fundamental misunderstanding of international politics according to Political Realism. Hegemonic powers never care about these de jure arguments anyway and will practicality always act in accordance to int’s own intressets, leaving weaker nations to navigate it.
Hegemonic powers
You can just say Russia you know. And yes, we know Russia doesn’t care about de jure arguments, they only understand power and violence. De-jure arguments are just a tool to them to give talking points to useful idiots in the West, in order to sow division and weaken us.
Political Realism
The question really is: do we accept a world where a third-rate regional power gets to trample all over its neighbors, using unimaginable violence and cruelty if those neighbors refuse to act as submissive client states?
From a moral and legal point of view, it’s a no-brainer to argue that we should not accept this, but even from your a-moral “real politik” point of view we should not accept it either because it goes squarely against our own interests to let a rogue state Russia regain its former superpower status by conquering major client states. Europe and the US are much stronger than Russia, so even your Political Realism dictates that we should help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression.
So yeah, there is no world in which “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is a valid argument. If you think there is, you can burn in hell with Kissinger for all I care.
