There is no sign that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is coming to an end, but Germany is already debating whether the Bundeswehr should participate in peacekeeping forces.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 1 year ago (41 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (39 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (38 children)

    While technically true, would you put that on the same level as Russia invading Ukraine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    Kinda. Both are imperialist actions. Both try to jpstify their imperialism with "defending" someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (36 children)

    Did NATO not bomb Yugoslavia to stop an ethnic cleansing? The bombing campaign lasted 2.5 months, and as far as I'm aware, Yugoslavia was not occupied during or after this time.

    Russia, on the other hand, is attacking and invading Ukraine (again), occupying and looting parts of the country, targeting and murdering civilians. The current "special operation" has gone on for almost 3 years, with no end in sight.

    I find it hard to believe that anyone could find those two scenarios comparable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (35 children)

    Russia claims that it's stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct. just that in every invasion in the history of the world the agressor had a justification ready of defending themselves or some weak ally.

    I don't see how the length of a war has anything to do with the justifications of the invasion. Russia didn't have the military force to reach their goals against Ukraine which received aide from the west. Yugoslavia was in a significantly worse position against NATO without any allies that could help them significantly. How does that justify the invasion of NATO?

    You asked for a comparable scenario and received an answer. Now you're trying to no-true-schotsman yourself out of your premise. Just stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (24 children)

    Russia claims that it's stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct.

    It matters if one claim is true and the other isn't though, kinda important. Also, russia is stealing territory and have constantly given different bs reasons for what they are doing. NATO saw a genocide, halted it and left. These are not comparable at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    Not if you're trying to understand why nation states are doing things and you're not incredibly naive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (22 children)

    Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan. So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

    In the end, this is a hopeless endeavor, though. Nations go to war for strategic reasons, not moral ones. And people continuosly want to ignore the strategic interests of the west, claiming that it only wants to "help Ukraine", while claiming that Russia wants to return to Czardom. Both interpretations ignore the strategic motivations.

    I don't think that going into detail would help anything. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that nations or their treaty organisations do anything because of a moral imperative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (20 children)

    Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan.

    You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?

    So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.

    Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?

    No, I meant after the Euromaidan. Those regions mostly weren't ok with the Euromaidan and have been bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.

    Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.

    I agree that the allegations by Russia have been blown out of proportions. That doesn't make NATO the "good guys".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

    bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.

    Since russia invaded the country, yes. Who downed MH17? Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence? lol

    That doesn't make NATO the "good guys".

    You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence?

    Why is that so absurd? Donetsk and Luhansk are russian-speaking and were vitally economically dependant on Russia. They were afraid that Kyiv politically focusing on Europe would be disastrous for their economy.

    I'm not arguing that Russia didn't have any interests there, that Russia didn't do some weird insurgency crap. I'm also not saying that it payed of for the poor sods who lived there. But believing that Ukraine would have been completely united after Euromaidan (which was allegedly also helped by western forces) if it weren't for Putin is naive.

    You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia

    I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists. I oppose them all. And my (very limited) sphere of influence doesn't reach into Russia. I can't do anything against Putin. I am however living in a NATO member counrty. And Karl Liebknechtput it best:

    The main enemy of every people is in their own country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists.

    You're gonna have to point out which territories NATO has annexed. What a load of nonsense.

    The main enemy of every people is in their own country

    Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country

    🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    What? Is that absurd? You must've missed the tenet media story, among the pile of other ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    You would've been the best cannon fodder in WW1.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    Since you obviously didn't get the 'main enemy' bit

    Edit: So, apparently condemning both Russian and western imperialism makes you a "vatnik", huh. /s Should I call you a Yankee, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I don't care about your meaningless pontificating. You either dodge questions because you have no valid response or just shit out garbage with no substance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    I could accuse you of the same. Why keep replying?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    You could accuse, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong. Still waiting on that list of territories that NATO has annexed. For someone who's so "concerned" about imperialism, you sure do carry a lot of water for what is likely the biggest offender of the past two decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you say so. As I said: I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists and I don't have the power to influence anything in Russia. That's why I'm focusing on the imperialist that I can affect (even if just slightly).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    As I said: I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists

    That's just shorthand for "I want to dodge any of the details/nuance because the facts are not on my side".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Hey buddy, looks like you’re getting your comments removed, looks like you’re a butt horn

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Came to aid your comrade since he's clearly struggling?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    A true comrade, nothing of substance to add. lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Not really, I'm just still waiting for a comparable example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Ok, moving the goalposts, then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, the whole point of this conversation, and my original comment, was to point out that Russia and NATO are not even in the same league as far as imperialistic tendencies. NATO has intervened to actually protect civilians. Russia just claims to be doing that while in reality murdering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Your point of this conversation is to make a moralistic argument of how evil Russia is. Moralistic arguments don't really work when you're trying to understand politics.

    I agree that Russia is committing atrocities. You failed to give a reason why this is happening, other than "they are evil".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    You're telling me what my point is now, lol?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you read the comment that I was originally responding to:

    NATO has basically been on the same path since its conception (check the Nazis that ended up in NATO high command!), but of course, two wrongs don't make a right.

    ... you'll see that I was addressing the thought that Russia and NATO basically have the same goals, (i.e. imperialism), which any thinking person can see is false.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments