• thecodemonk@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    ·
    1 year ago

    The comment threads here are weird. Who, in their right mind, would ever support a country like Russia? It’s mind blowing.

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              40
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn’t say it’s “okay,” but the blame isn’t just on their side.

              If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I’d like to condemn Russian escalation, but it’s a little hard for me to do so if I don’t have an answer to that question.

              • Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.

                Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

                If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?

                If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  29
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

                  Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it’s a fair point.

                  If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.

                  Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could’ve be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.

                  • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This is like saying that the US should’ve invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There’s always another way besides war and violence.

                  • Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia

                    Of course. They just don’t have a right to drag the rest of Ukraine into Russia at the same time. On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement on the grounds of “why should I care if a country’s capitalist class loses some of its economic base?”

                    should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country?

                    No, but if that’s what was happening we could all then be criticizing a peacetime government for acting injustice upon segments of its population, instead of advocating for an end to a war. The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to “save” a group of people isn’t one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn’t we be in a constant state of war everywhere? (Since there’s pretty much at least one oppressed group in every country worldwide at least one other country could claim a right to “protect” them based on shared heritage or language.)

                    Just because Russia (might) have the military capability to do so when all these other countries might not doesn’t mean they should.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.

          • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.

            Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a “counteroffensive.” Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don’t need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they’ve lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia’s demands before more lives are needlessly lost.

            Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.

            As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from ‘The Bad Country,’ they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they’re facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.

      • LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you’d want peace by Ukraine giving up its territory?

        How about peace talks that involve Russia giving back all Ukrainian lands (including Crimea) and pulling all troops out.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why stop there, how about demanding Russia provide every Ukrainian with a talking unicorn buddy?

          I live in reality and when I say I want peace it means I believe in negotiating based on realistic expectations.

          • LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You mean the Russians that Russia settled there? Curious what you think about the Uighurs getting to break away a country from China.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              They mean the people that live in the region. What kind of fucking shit nationalism is this? Are you a leftist or a nationalist?

            • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most of the people I’m talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don’t believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.

              By “the Uighers” I assume you’re talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It’s 90+% approval for China overall, I can’t find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.

    • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Get out of your bubble. The majority of the world supports Russia. It’s an uncommon view in Europe/USA, but common everywhere else.

      Also, being anti NATO expansion doesn’t mean you support Russia. That is a reductive world view.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s bad for thousands of ukrainians to die in war they cannot win, which they do not want to fight, purely so NATO can accomplish some esoteric geopolitical goal, but that’s just me shrug-outta-hecks

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tankies claim to not be supporting Russia but only point out issues with Ukraine and believe every bit of info that comes out of Russia.