Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

  • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

    West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

    Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

      You mean a western led coup with assistance from neo nazis to remove the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014. With the explicit goal of “Latin Americanising” Eastern Europe and privatizing and selling off all their assets. The Ukrainian government still has a website up today for selling off anything not bolted down to the highest bidder. Shock doctrine 2.0.

      West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

      You mean forcing Ukraine to start a counter offensive using NATO combined arms tactics for witch Ukraine had neither the equipment or required training to execute. And with no will from the west to give Ukraine the required equipment (F-16 saga anyone?). How do you do a combined arms offensive without a fully functional air force? The worst part being that the west knew this, and still forced Ukraine to go ahead with the offensive anyways, knowing there was little chance of success.

      Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

      More like people saw this coming and think the loss of life over this attrition war is tragic. How does Ukraine win an attrition war against Russia? What is the exit plan? This is just Afganistan all over again in some ways.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even some otherwise good regular leftists have absolute dogshit takes on Ukraine. It’s like they’re allergic to even being coincidentally on the same side as the US State Department that they start falling all over themselves to be like “Remember guys, US Bad,” and start like saying that we should be pushing Ukraine to give up territory to appease Russia so they don’t use nukes. When we already know because of Crimea that Putin will almost certainly just regroup and try again if they give him anything.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, I couldn’t understand it, because to most NATO members, NATO is the backbone of their security, but I’ve realised that many lefties’ reaction to NATO is akin to atheists’ emotional-dogmatic view of religion: They’re ever suspicious, never forgive nor forget past crimes, they reject all redeeming qualities and twist themselves to oppose benefitting them at the axiom level.

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would say most leftists (specially the libertarian type), are not on the side of Russia on this.

        Tankies have just been really loud with their mental gymnastics lately.

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

        That’s because you don’t understand what imperialism means. US/EU capital is looting and exploiting the former socialist block and controlling it through western capitalist media, NGOs, and military bases. That’s imperialism. The Russians preventing Nazis from doing ethnic cleansing along their border and demanding not to be threatened with a gun to the head is not imperialism.

        • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Funny how living standards in the ex-soviet countries have improved considerably since joining the EU, but that has not been the case for the ones that chose to be kept under Russia’s sphere of influence. 🤔

          Looks like the EU is really bad at looting, they should learn from Russia.

          • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They didn’t improve at all. The rich are better off, thanks to mass privatization of public property. For the middle/working class, quality of life stagnated at best.

            Source: I live in an ex-soviet country.

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

            There was a massive dip in all those places in the 90s with shock therapy. A lot of people are still worse off in a lot of ways and angry. Hence AfD, Orban, PiS and all those other angry nationalists.

            Also, if you want to be fair, you should compare for example Poland to west Germany. Polish workers toil for German capitalists, and yet, somehow, they’re getting exploited way more than the German workers. Less pay, worse services, worse infrastructure, less worker’s rights. That whole arrangement is super-exploitative. Meanwhile foreigners bought most of that country. Treated like a colony basically.

            The Russians got fucked even worse than Poland in the 90s, which resulted in a backlash which Putin made himself the head of. What Russia is doing is self-preservation. Any state with the means to preserve it’s sovereignty from a hostile takeover would try to do so, it’s not just something an imperialist state would do. Hence Russia is not doing an imperialism here.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hell, compare East Germany to the reich West Germany. West Germany’s economic conquest of East Germany was incredibly ruthless and brutal, and East Germany never recovered from having it’s entire economy pillaged and burned.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah. It’s still technically illegal to get an abortion in the reich afaik. It was really something finding out that the gdr had gender parity in most fields before the west crushed it, and that western germany had to give women a bunch of rights to try to manage to political turmoil.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            living standards in the ex-soviet countries have improved considerably since joining the EU

            Yeah the living standards sure did improve after one of the worst demographic disasters in that era. Easy for things to get better when you start from the bottom I mean come on do better.

            • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So, why didn’t Belarus improve at the same rate as the Baltic countries?

              They both started from the bottom, right?

              • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, why didn’t Belarus improve at the same rate as the Baltic countries?

                If you think that the answer to this is simply “because Russia bad” you have the mind of a child.

                • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Eastern European countries that opened to western trade and diplomatic relationships improved significantly.

                  Eastern European countries that became Russian puppets didn’t.

                  Explain that.

                  • imagine ignoring the absolutely ruthless, western led cannibalization of the former soviet union and pretending history’s baseline started AFTER the largest decline of living standards in global history.

                    human trafficking, prostitution, alcoholism, food/energy insecurity, diseases of despair all exploded when the west forced capitalism and privatization onto the former soviet union in the immediate aftermath. Gorbachev thought he was going to get some easy-going nordic social democracy, but instead the west carved up their public sector like a christmas ham. maybe you were too young, but in the 1980s the propaganda portrait the west had of russian women were all heavy-set, ugly babushkas. suddenly, after 1989, the mail order beautiful russian bride phenomenon exploded. they were fleeing the gutting of the public sector and the shattering of the social safety net, which made it near impossible to raise a family in the eastern bloc without becoming a sex worker.

                    the west sponsored every retrograde nationalist reactionary psycho to undermine any hint of democratic resistance to economic liberalization schemes and bombed the shit out of infrastructure (Yugoslavia) whenever they could get away with it. the west has the most blood on its hands for the aftermath of the USSR, but people like you want to ignore those early days and then claim credit for the “winners” the west propped up in the aftermath of all that chaos. like a killer who torched a town but kidnapped a few kids and now touts his heroic rescue of them. the most ignorant and disgusting take.

              • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Balts were immediately used as forward positions for NATO and were allowed to keep their state programs and industry. Belarus got the same treatment as Russia.

                You should probably know the answer to your own snarky questions before you ask them.

                • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So, what you’re saying is that the countries that sided with the West got a better deal than the ones that became Russian puppets?

            • renownedballoonthief@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Have some compassion, some people just want to crank their knob to exploitative porn without questioning why so much of it comes from Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia.

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            since joining the EU

            I hope you understand how this is an incredibly cherry-picked range. It’s like saying “look how steadily the American economy grew from the period of 1930 to 1940”.

            Many Eastern European countries in the EU are still being hollowed out and suffering massive brain drain. The model of “tributary state” accurately applies here.

    • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      At a 2008 summit, NATO stated that it would attempt to expand to include Georgia and Ukraine, despite Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them. Georgia was immediately invaded by Russia in response. Imo this makes it clear that NATO membership for either of those countries was so unacceptable that Russia would rather invade.

      If we assume that Russia (and Putin in particular) is acting violently and irrationally like a wild animal, why did NATO continue to agitate Russia when the only possible outcome would be violence? Surely a neutral or even Russia-aligned Ukraine would be preferable to a war-torn Ukraine? This is proof that the US and NATO don’t care about the average person actually living in Ukraine, and indeed don’t care about the Ukrainian state beyond it being a useful (and profitable) proxy against a geo-political rival.

      To be clear, I’m not excusing Russia here, but geo-politics aren’t about what’s “fair” or “right”, and if they were, the US would be a global pariah.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, according to what you’re saying, Mexico can never join BRICS if the US says no. Is that what you think? The US can be a pretty rabid animal too, as you say.

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, BRICS isn’t really a formal alliance but if it were? Yeah, joining a hostile alliance while sharing a border with the US is asking for trouble, and the US has committed all matter of atrocities in latin america. I do think an outright invasion would be less likely than their usual method of military coups and death squads.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          NATO and BRICS are fundamentally different. You cannot compare them in good faith. NATO exists for the explicit purpose of destroying Russia. BRICS does not exist for the explicit purpose of destroying NATO, or America for that matter. It’s an extremely bad faith comparison.

          Also yeah America would flatten the Mexico City if Mexico tried to join BRICS. They’ve already agitated for a coup a number of times in the last decade.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          ?

          What component of BRICS is a military alliance? That’s a nonsensical comparison.

          And the Mexican president just said that Mexico is unable to join BRICS because of the geopolitical situation.

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If Mexico was given an army by China and started bombing Texas and committing ethnic cleansing, it would not be imperialism to try and stop that

          If the lines on a map are an issue for you, just imagine a world where the Us broke up and lost Texas to Mexico before the ethnic cleansing started

        • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What do you think would happen if, hypothetically speaking, a nearby state such as, let’s say, Cuba started hosting the military assets of a hostile power?

          What about even a distant nation such as oh I don’t know maybe Iran or one of the koreas started making weapons the US felt threatened by?

          Just thinking aloud here I don’t know.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody is offering Ukraine nukes, that’s what the Budapest memorandum was all about, knock it off.

            Cuba had its revolution and had its own arsenal provided by the USSR and has survived everything the US threw at it so far and Ukraine will survive russia too, but a moat would be handy :)

            • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              and has survived everything the US threw at it so far

              The point being the US threw a lot of shit at it because of course the US wouldn’t tolerate those missiles being there, and Russia won’t tolerate NATO being in Ukraine.

              If China made a defensive alliance with Mexico that included a military base in Tijuana, Mexico would suddenly be in need of some democracy and freedom.

              Continuing to deny this basic reality means your position isn’t connected to reality.

              Peace requires a sustainable security situation for Russia not just for Ukraine and for Russia that means no NATO since NATO is hostile to Russia. It’s clear and denying this is just putting your head in the sand.

              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                Does the US have to place nukes in Ukraine so that by removing them russia will stop attacking it?

                But by all means, if Trump starts threatening Mexico with some bullshit invasion to clean out the cartels, they should by all means ask China and anyone else to help out, sure! That’s how it works in a bipolar world (there is no multipolar world, russia’s empire is gone and China+US will make sure it never returns)

                NATO is not hostile to russia, NATO prevents russia from invading its western neighbours, which is obviously a bummer to russia.

                The sustainable security solution is: russia respects borders and other countries’ sovereignty. The end.

                • Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                  Yeah so the obvious conclusion is that peace in Cuba required satisfying the US’s demand to not have a Soviet military presence there.

                  Likewise peace in Ukraine requires not having a NATO military presence there.

                  Pretending that NATO isn’t hostile to Russia is also simply disconnected from reality. You need to connect your world view to reality.

                  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well, the weapons are still in Cuba, thank god :) and Cuba has an air force, which I suppose was given/sold to Cuba by the USSR/China, so maybe the US can also give some F16 to Ukraine. The USSR also sent planes and soviet crews to fight the Americans in Vietnam, so there is precedent for all that.

                    NATO is hostile to russia’s imperial ambitions and so are all of its neighbours.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

                  You get that in this analogy Ukraine is taking the place of Cuba, right? Like NATO is using Ukraine as a disposable proxy to bleed Russia… okay well the metaphor falls apart because the details are really different, but Cuba was threatening the US in a vaguely similar way to how Ukraine is threatening Russia, and the peace deal was that Cuba would remove all the missiles and in exchange the US would remove it’s missiles from Turkey and not massacre the Cuban population. So the equivalent would be Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO (not that NATO was ever going to let them), disarm, and stop trying to wipe out Russian speaking Ukrainians.

                  NATO is not hostile to russia

                  NATO’s explicit purpose is and always have been the destruction of the Russian state and the pillaging of it’s resources and it’s beyond bad faith to state otherwise.

      • Tigbitties@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them

        Fuck that bully shit. They don’t own Ukraine and Georgia and they can make their own decisions. If Russia wanted a nato buffer zone they should have offered incentive. Look what they got instead…

      • LordR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember another time when some dictator wanted a bigger sphere of influence and started occupying other countries. Appeasement didn’t work than and it didn’t work with Russia.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I find in all Russia’s statements kind of ridiculous that it would have a say in how other sovereign countries handle their safety. Ukraine and Georgia have their own decisions to make

        • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not pretty but this is how the world works. If a man is holding a gun to your head, and says he’ll kill you if you don’t give him your wallet, do you hold onto the wallet out of principle because robbery is immoral?

          • sol@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The man with the gun to his head doesn’t have much of a choice if he wants to live. You, though, have a choice between criticising and defending the man with the gun, and you’re choosing to defend him.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Bruv you’re not this dense. NATO, an alliance constructed for the express purpose of destroying Russia, which did not disband when the USSR was destroyed, which continued to advance towards and encircle Russia for decades after the fall of the USSR, which refused the RF’s attempts to join the alliance, which has engaged in numerous illegal wars of aggression, is the man holding the gun and I swear to god just because you were born there that does not make them the good guys.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        “How dare ex soviet nations try to ensure their own protection after Russia showed multiple times they like to invade ex soviet nations!”

      • navorth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t write two paragraphs excusing Russia and then say “I’m not excusing Russia btw.”

        No country should be able to force ‘my way or a military invasion’ ultimatum on another non hostile sovereign state. If a government interprets a neighboring country joining a purely defensive treaty out of their own volition (no, Ukraine is not secretly run by the CIA after Maidan) as a hostile act, that only means the nationalism levels went out if control.

        I’m normally very critical of the US, but neither them nor NATO can be blamed for this conflict.

        • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          non hostile sovereign state

          For the past several decades NATO has utterly destroyed various countries around the world, while maintaining ruthless tradewars against the peoples of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela, as well as a brutal colonial regime across much of West Africa. NATO won’t stop at invading your country either. They’ll maintain occupations in Syria and blockades of Afghanistan from now until the end of time.

          NATO would rather see the people of Niger and Mali starve to death rather than pay market rates for their resources.

          NATO will crow that countries in South America are too defiant, why, they didn’t even try and coup the brazilian elections last year!

          NATO is, simply put, a defensive alliance of the world’s preeminent warmongerers.

          Hosting NATO troops is the epitome of hostility.

          Unfortunately for you some countries can actually resist. And resist they shall.

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          non hostile sovereign state

          Non-hostility is when you do ethnic cleansing against the ethnicity the neighboring country is named after, engage in a war right by the borders to support that ethnic ckeansing, violate your treaties to end that war, and cozy up your coup government to the military organization intended to encircle that country, an org that regularly engages in aggression.

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’. There were tensions between Russian and Ukrainian nationals in those territories, but I’ve seen no data on large scale extermination operations.

            Ukraine engaged in a defensive war with a force clearly backed by their stronger neighbor that just laid claim to another piece of their land (Crimea). This was a land grab in all but name, no matter how much propaganda tries to paint it as a legitimate independence movement. Blame for casualties of that war lies entirely on separatists and Russia.

            • TheGamingLuddite [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine has used internationally banned cluster munitions in the donbass since 2014. A six year old playing in a field and dying to unexploded ordnance, whether that child is a Russian or Ukrainian speaker, is a horrific tragedy. These bombs are a form of terrorism sponsored by the post-coup Ukrainian state, and the nazi paramilitaries active in the area were and are state-sponsored terrorists.

              https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                But I never said I support cluster munitions. Fuck them, and fuck the Nazis.

                I did not just engage in a few hours of discussion to try and convince anyone that Ukraine is the shining beacon of hope and democracy. It isn’t, they have problems. So does every state. Some (like Russia) just seem to have comparatively more of those, or are not particularly good at dealing with them.

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

                  The problem though is that these issues are self-perpetuating. Both the current Russian and post-2014 Ukraine governments are the products of US interference. If we were truly spreading Democracy, then they would be capable of mediating these conflicts peacefully. Since Capital dictates the terms of our international intervention, it puts its own interests first, and it’s very interested in selling weapons. I just can’t accept the premise that selling more weapons will lead to any sort of long-lasting peace or democracy in the region.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’

              The ethnic cleansing was and is part of official Ukrainian policy. Do you think the sneaky Rooskies infiltrated and forced Kyiv to drop Russian as an official language, one that could be learned and used in schools in Donbas? Did they cleverly rename the streets to Bandyerite fascist names? Did they create the Azov Batallikn, Righy Sector, etc - the Ukrainian fascist groups weaponized against the ethnic Russian civilians of Donbas and now directly incorporated into the government and armed forces? Did Russia secretly create the entire Kyiv side of the civil war that heavily targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure on the Donbas side?

              Cool to learn, I didn’t know that.

            • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ethnic cleansings in those territories are a fabricated casus beli for Russia ‘green man’.

              there have been reports of Ukranian paramilitaries shelling the Donbas going back almost a decade. multiple peace treaties were signed over it, all aiming to stop the ethnic cleansing. each and every one of those treaties were violated. this is all extremely well-documented. can you even prove that a single of these reports is fabricated?

        • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          For the first 40 years of NATO’s existence it sought to offensively undermine democracy and reinforce the states of NATO aligned countries in Europe through terrorism.

          They then rather offensively carpet bombed Yugoslavia killing and wounding thousands of civilians ( many of whom were from Kosovo the people they purportedly wanted to help), 3 foreign diplomats by bombing a foreign embassy not in anyway involved in a conflict and completely destroying the infrastructure of Serbia.

          They then offensively invaded Afghanistan where they destabilized the country, toppled the government and then put pedophile psychos in charge because they were the ones willing to work with us, killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and then ended up putting the original government back in charge 20 years later.

          Finally they offensively took the most prosperous country in Africa, a country with universal college, healthcare, jobs programs, and housing, a desert country that had a 200 year supply of water and bombed the fuck out of it, destroying the water supply, plundering the gold, supporting the precursors to ISIS, and turned the country into a place with fucking slave auctions.

          But yeah NATO is a defensive alliance.

          • navorth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO - I protested against my country involvement when possible and do agree about them being either dumb decisions (Kosovo) or straight up war crimes (Afghanistan). They shouldn’t have happend.

            My point still stand though. NATO doesn’t threaten Russia borders. It could be called ‘Anti-Russia-Country-Club’, but even then the only things threatened by existence of NATO are post-USSR legacy and economic interest. Not exactly arguments to mount a large scale invasion/ethnic cleansing.

            • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, I will not be defending those actions of NATO

              You’ll just ignore their relevance to why NATO approaching your doorstep is, in fact, hostile and aggressive.

              NATO was literally created to oppose the USSR and the left in Europe generally, and did not disband after the fall of the USSR, instead taking up further aggression and at greater range, and keeping a very clear encirclement position around Russia. The bases got larger, the spending increased, and membership was sought to undermine any countries stepping out of line of the American-imposed order.

            • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              If NATO, as we both agree, is an aggressive group of countries that has a contemporary history of attacking countries that are not aligned with the West, despite many of these countries trying to align themselves with the West in good faith (Libya, Russia, and Iran all helped the West in the war on terror), then what is the appropriate way for Russia to react to the expansion of NATO to their doorstep? And I’m asking this as a genuine question, you’re Russia how are you reacting to the West surrounding you despite assisting them, when do you stop tolerating increased military encroachment?

              I don’t think that Russia invaded Ukraine because of only NATO expansion, but it obviously played a role given that the peace agreement that was nearly agreed upon April 2022 had Ukraine agree to neutrality. I think a lot of it came down to the genocide of ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the East and Ukraine’s increased shelling of the region in February 2022 is probably what escalated the war into what we see today.

              • navorth@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s a good question. Let me tackle it from a different angle though - why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                As a resident of one, I think it’s because they feel that Russia after Yeltsin has the exact same imperialistic principles USSR did. And it doesn’t matter to them that Russia did cooperate with the West, because they see those principles as enough threat. Thus, they have the same reason to fear Russia as Russia has to fear NATO.

                Perhaps if NATO disbanded before 1999 we wouldn’t have current Russia, but that’s alt history.

                • NPa [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                  Because they are run by right-wing oligarchies that want to consolidate and protect their accumulated wealth and power? The imperialism is coming from inside the house.

                  • navorth@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Disappointing. The other Hexbear folk at least tried to have a discussion, you just show up with the old ‘everything left of my position is fascist’ argument, expecting what exactly?

                • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s a good question. Let me tackle it from a different angle though - why do ex USSR/Warsaw Pact countries actively want to join NATO?

                  Fellow ex Warsaw Pact resident here.

                  They wanted to join NATO because after the dissolution of the USSR these countries were pushed into a deep economic crisis, to which one of the solutions, apart from relentless austerity programs was the privatization of the shit ton of public assets they had. Of course lots of western companies were in on this since for them these assets were really cheap and they had a lot of money. The city hall of the town i went to university to became a fucking McDonald’s.

                  Thing is, a lot of people didnt like this, not just the austerity, but the handing of domestic assets to western companies. And they were not even that wrong about it! In Albania, in 1997 a series of bankruptcies of asset managing companies (most western owned) who were basically scamming people who barely came into contact with capitalism, telling them theyll get 50% interest rates for their money, led to a brutal uprising where ordinary people were sacking military bases, setting up machine gun nests in the borders of cities and overthrew the government (after half a year of protests).

                  In the meantime Russia was led by well-known alcoholic, Boris Yeltsin, who doesn’t strike me as the napoleonic conqueror people make him out to be.

                  So why did these countries join NATO? Because they DESPERATELY needed the money, but western companies wouldnt invest in (exploit) them if they dont have insurances (troops that could be sent against the people anytime an Albanian-type revolt breaks out or an anti-western government come in power who would try to renationalize assets) that their investments (exploitation) runs as smoothly as possible. And it works. People like to say that “ackshually the living standards went up in Eastern Europe”, but they never stop to check that it only went up because the rich got richer, pulling the average up. The working class’ lives stagnated at best, except the social net around them is rapidly brought down. Older people are not nostalgic for socialism here because theyre becoming senile, but because they see every time that they go to a hospital that the increasingly privatized healthcare system is crumbling.

                  Don’t believe me? It’s fine. But i would suggest that you examine who the current pariahs are in NATO: Hungary, whose government has to rely in a lot of things to the cheapest due to a ravaged economy (both by corruption and privatization), so they rely a lot on domestic production and trying to hand off as little stuff to western corporations as possible (and still fail at it, hence why they are still intact), and Turkey, who makes no secret of wanting to standing on its own feet and not rely on western corporations.

                  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In the meantime Russia was led by well-known alcoholic, Boris Yeltsin, who doesn’t strike me as the napoleonic conqueror people make him out to be.

                    probably worth mentioning that I think he also couped the government to prevent the Communist party from being voted back in to power in I want to say '94.

                • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Russia after Yeltsin

                  Russia during Yeltsin rolled in the tanks on its own parliament. The absence of foreign invasions was not for lack of malice, but for lack of capability.

                  The reason why ex-Warsaw Pact countries are flocking to NATO is because when the communists left power, the reactionaries resurged. And naturally the reactionaries in power wanted to be part of a right-wing alliance. But no matter what revanchists might tell you, living standards across Eastern Europe were better in the 1980s than they were in the 2000s.

                  • navorth@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I live in eastern Europe, and I agree that the 90s and early 2000 sucked for us. Big time. My country government absolutely botched the transition to free market economy.

                    Still, I feel we traded stable but shit for volatile yet hopeful.

    • AttackPanda@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope we can keep supporting Ukraine. This is one of the few times in history when the scenario is so clear cut good vs evil. The Ukrainians fought hard to get out from under the thumb of Russia and the Russians just couldn’t have that so they invaded. The support the world provides to Ukraine is support provided for all Democracies.

          • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The one where NATO backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine? That seems like the opposite of fighting to get out from under foreign thumb

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The one that happened because their leader was passing laws making him a dictator and violently putting down protesters leading to more protests causing him to flee. Also any support came after that was over, not before.

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                See, if he were a legitimate leader he would have let the west supplant him in a violent coup WITHOUT reacting to it. That makes it justified post hoc.

                You have to let the nazis march. It’s the rules.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So people in their country should never fight if their leader is working to surpress their rights and become a dictator. They just have to wait for elections that will never be fair again if they even happen. Also he did react to it by fleeing, Putin is not the leader of Ukraine, he has no business reacting to anything.

                  Putin did march his nazies into Ukraine after that if that’s what you mean.

      • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, clearcut good is when a government starts building monuments to Holocaust perpetrators, and banning minority languages including Yiddish, followed by a decade of bombing ethnic minorities in a border region.

        wtf-am-i-reading

      • Flinch [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democracy is when you ban all left-leaning parties in your country and burn a hall full of trade unionists alive, and the more parties you ban and trade unionists you burn alive the more democratic you are. I don’t see what’s so hard for these tankies to get!!

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      capabara-tank I regret to inform you that you have failed your introduction to 21st century history class capabara-tank

      Like just little things.

      Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it’s an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?

      Did you know Crimea has a 30 year long history of seeking more autonomy, or even independence, from Ukraine?

      Do you know what the very first action of the coup Rada was?

      Do you know what “encirclement” means?

      I know Plato’s Allegory of the Cave gets used a lot when discussion the hegemonic power of western propaganda over western people, but come on bruv.

      Do the words “Minsk II” mean anything to you?

      Are you aware of the tariff agreements in place between Russia and Ukraine in 2013?

      Do you know who Bandera was?

      Do you know what the Russian Federation’s stated causus belli for the invasion is?

      What do you know?

      • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t have the time for the classic tankie “reply with a wall of text and deflections”, I actually have a real job to attend to. But some main points.

        Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it’s an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?

        Do you also know that Russia took Sevastopol from Ukraine back in 2014?

        Tell me, do you also support Israel’s claims on Palestinian territory?

        Do you know what the Russian Federation’s stated causus belli for the invasion is?

        Yes.

        Do you know what the causis belli for the US’s invasion of Iraq was? Are you stupid enough to believe that one as well? Or does believing causus belli only applies to whatever country is not an ally of the US?

        What do you know?

        I know you should get a gold medal on mental gymnastics and double standards.

        • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t have the time for the classic tankie “reply with a wall of text and deflections”, I actually have a real job to attend to. But some main points.

          This whole “unlike you tAnKiEs I have a job” thing just makes you look insecure and childish.

          You know that, right?

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do you also know that Russia took Sevastopol from Ukraine back in 2014?

          Yes? Because the Black Sea Fleet is station in Sevastopol and Sevastopol is a vital strategic resource? Are we speaking the same language?

          Tell me, do you also support Israel’s claims on Palestinian territory?

          Non-sequitor?

          Do you know what the causis belli for the US’s invasion of Iraq was? Are you stupid enough to believe that one as well? Or does believing causus belli only applies to whatever country is not an ally of the US?

          … Okay so you know that UA was shelling Donbass and killing people for years, and the Rada was very openly hostile to the Russian speaking Ukrainian minority, right?

          I know you should get a gold medal on mental gymnastics and double standards.

          Could I get a sticker instead?

          Also that’s not a wall of text you dork it’s like 10 sentences.

          • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because the Black Sea Fleet is station in Sevastopol and Sevastopol is a vital strategic resource? Are we speaking the same language?

            So if the US has a fleet statinoned in another contry’s territory, should they just be allowed to take it?

            Non-sequitor?

            What don’t you follow?

            Do you also support US-backed countries to take territory as they see fit? Or does that only apply to countries you like?

            Okay so you know that UA was shelling Donbass and killing people for years, and the Rada was very openly hostile to the Russian speaking Ukrainian minority, right?

            A Russian-backed separatist group starts a conflict and Ukraine responds.

            Does Ukraine not have the right to defend their territory?

            Could I get a sticker instead?

            You can get some crayons to munch on.

            • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Does Ukraine not have the right to defend their territory?

              Do eastern ukrainians have a right not to be ethnically cleansed?

        • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t have the time for the classic tankie “reply with a wall of text and deflections”

          This is literally a deflection to avoid dealing with the (inconvenient) basic facts you should’ve learned before having any opinion on this topic in the first place.

    • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The US dares to coup a democratically elected government, and then its neighbor invades at the behest of people the new government were persecuting after two different ceasefires are broken by Ukraines puppet government.

      Dronies be like “oh no our wholesome smol bean azov fighters are being oppressed”