US Senator Lindsay Graham has just tweeted an article titled “Greta Thunberg sets sail with Gaza flotilla that aims to break Israeli naval blockade,” adding the comment, “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!”
Australian Zionist think tanker Arsen Ostrovsky somehow outdid Graham, tweeting “Oh look, the little jihadi Greta Thunberg is trying to get into Gaza, to show solidarity with Hamas. It would be so sad if something were to happen to her flotilla…”
There’s not a lot that can shock me about Israel and its supporters these days. But if you’d traveled back in time a few years ago it would be hard to explain to someone how we got to a timeline that includes Israel supporters openly advocating the assassination of Greta Thunberg.
NATO should have stayed the fuck away from Ukraine and not try to incorporate them into their alliance. If you don’t understand how NATO establishing military bases on Russia’s borders threatens their security you need to shut the fuck up about global politics until you educate yourself on such matters
So Russia is entitled to control Ukraine?
So, NATO is entitled to control Ukraine and Russia?
No. But any country is free to join NATO willingly, even if it pisses off Russia.
Why do you people like to bring up the fact that states can willingly join what is the contemporary nazi Axis as a good thing that should not be fought against?
Who cares what Russia is “entitled” to? What matters is that placing hostile military bases on a long, geographically soft border is obviously going to be perceived by them as a threat to their national security, and so they acted to prevent that from becoming a reality. It is not about some moralist stance, but the simple realistic calculation that an encroaching enemy military alliance will be responded to if deemed necessary and possible.
So you accept that Russia is in the wrong in invading Ukraine?
Yes, but geopolitics is not about simple moralistic judgements. What matters is that US and NATO did everything they possibly could to provoke that reaction in order to a) damage Russia and b) seize control of Ukraine’s assets. The US wanted Russia to invade Ukraine. It wants the war to continue indefinitely, no matter how many Ukrainians are killed. The US’s objective is not a free, democratic, independent Ukraine, but a subservient, reactionary, militarized neocolony whose resources and labor are siphoned up by US capitalists. Arming Ukraine does nothing to protect the Ukrainian people - it prolongs their suffering with no real chance of liberation, because even if they win they will fall under the US’s absolute control.
To everything but your last sentence, possibly (though citation needed) but you forget the context of this conversation which is people dunking on Greta Thunberg for supporting Ukraine.
To your last sentence, do you think Russia will go home and return its stolen territory if Ukraine disarms?
There is simply no scenario where Ukraine gets back Crimea. Returning the eastern border oblasts is nearly as unlikely. It does not matter if Ukraine disarms or not. We cannot deal in fantastical outcomes - we need to focus on what the best path forward under the current circumstances is. For Ukraine, that’s an immediate end to the war, even at the cost of those territories. After that, the question is - what relationship does Ukraine have with the US/NATO and Russia? If they move closer to the US, they will be degraded to a pathetic rump state where the rights of the people are systematically trampled in service of American capitalism. Russia is by no means a global good guy, but they do tend to treat their partner states better than the US treats theirs, and so the sensible move would be to ditch the current (Nazi-infested) government and align more closely with Russia. It would be in Russia’s interest to have a relatively independent Ukraine with the economic strength not to rely on the US. That is, in fact, what the people of Ukraine voted for when electing Zelensky - but the US trampled that and successfully provoked Russia into war with Ukraine, sidelining Ukrainian agency entirely specifically because it didn’t align with US geostrategic priorities.
If we stop giving Ukraine weapons, Russia will just take more of Ukraine. They want conquest. You are literally yourself arguing for Ukraine to become a vassal state of Russia because you know that’s the only thing Russia would tolerate. You are basically agreeing with Russia that Russia is entitled to Ukraine.
The war started because Russia cannot tolerate an independent Ukraine. You are ignoring Ukraine’s agency. You claim that the US provoked Russia somehow (after Zelensky was elected?) but didn’t explain how.
Why do you people always care more about imaginary lines in the sand over actual people’s lives?
You are literally arguing for both Ukraine and Russia to be even less - completely subjugated colonies of NATO.
The war started after a coup against the Ukrainian government, because it was a blasts attempt to bring NATO military to Russia’s borders. The rest of the world has every right to defend itself against NATO.
Ukraine joining NATO is not independence. In fact you lose autonomy the second you join an exploitative organization like that.
Turns out that most nation states only have the “agency” that is afforded to them by other more powerful states. Cuba is probably the perfect example of this.
We can sit here and say that’s bad as much as we like, but that’s not going to change actual reality.
Is America entitled to nuke russia?
No.
Answer my original question.
No.
Is Ukraine allowed to genocide ethnic minorities in their border with impunity?
Who is Ukraine genociding?
You wanna ask about currently or what’s gone on in the past decade?
It would be nice if you could provide a citation.
You’re more than welcome to discuss the topic even deeper here in our news mega make sure to give an opening statement on why we’re all wrong and why you’re right.
At this point Ukraine would be better off reuniting with Russia rather than become a puppet state for NATO
Mask off.
Oh yeah, they’d be much better off paying tribute to the countries that continue to pressure them to wage a proxy war on their behalf instead of surrendering and putting an end to the bloodshed.
Citation needed. What proxy war?
Holy shit you’re dense. NATO is using Ukraine as a proxy in order to indirectly wage war with Russia. You think they’re just doing it out of the goodness of their heart?
Russia shouldn’t have invaded of they didn’t want NATO to do that.
They were already trying to join nato. But a nation at war can’t join nato
Have you been living under a rock?
That doesn’t look like a citation to me.
Correct. That was a question.
Reddit, clown