• zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    one can be anti-russia

    Or just don’t. Stop taking sides in the rich man’s wars.

    that’s a fairly common position

    Americans and being pro-war. Its more likely than you think.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination

        Just rhetorically? Is a Tinkerbell thing, where saying “I don’t believe in Ukraine” kills a fairy and then I need to clap really hard to bring Ukraine back to life?

        Or are we supposed to be doing something in particular, like SWATing any of my neighbors I catch using Cyrillic?

        That doesn’t confer supporting this or that Ukrainian army regiment ipso facto

        So I need to support the abstract concept of self-determination, but I don’t need to support he physical means by which that self-determination is achieved? Why? What could possibly be the purpose of this?

        feeling sad

        Okay. So the purpose of supporting the underdogs in a grisly war that only seems to benefit the MIC is to… feel sad? That’s it? All of this is just an exercise in media-induced depression?

        Again, why the fuck would I want to do this?

          • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well nothing we believe in makes any single difference in foreign policy so you’re under no obligation to care about anything whatsoever.

            I’m more concerned with the reflexive need to pick a team and then get incredibly angry at your neighbors if they’re not on the same foreign-policy team. You’re clearly invested in doing something, if you believe

            One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination and thus be anti-Russia in the sense of opposing this unjust war of aggression.

            So what’s the plan? What are you suggesting “support” looks like?

            Because, right now, I’m seeing a lot of generic hysteria and hate aimed at anyone with a Russian ethnicity (among other ethnicities that people are “aligning” with Russia).

            Personally I think you should care about things

            Does caring about things mean taking a certain posture towards people? Does this posture affect the material conditions of those people?

            Is your definition of “doing something” just “being low-key racist” towards anyone you track as insufficiently pro-AmericanUkrainian.

            Because I went through that shit after 9/11. People running around to every Mosque and screaming at Muslims to prove that they care about things. I remember people cheering at waterboarding, because it proved that you cared about things. I remember how you had to be a zealous supporter of the next big war, to prove you cared about things. And if you didn’t, it could cost you. Your social circle. Your career. Potentially your life, depending on how heated things got.

            We going to “care about” Ukraine like that, too?

              • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s no need to “pick a team”

                That’s exactly what being “pro”/“anti” Russian is.

                the denial of the right to self-determination

                This isn’t self-determination, it is states feuding over the border line. Might as well apply self-determination to CSA diehards chanting “States’ Rights” as Azov dorks.

                I mean more so just as an ethical position

                The only ethical position is an anti-war position. Any assertion that you can ethically fling high explosives across a countryside is false. It can’t be done in any context.

                  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    When one state (the aggressor)

                    Color Revolution, which resulted in a coup of the sitting government

                    which cascaded into a civil war against East Ukrainian seperatists

                    that only ended with a Russian invasion in defense of the Donetsk rebels.

                    Which was the “one state” that kicked this mess off? Because I can’t find it. I see no less than three separate states actively involved for over a decade.

                    So if a state invades another with the intention of occupying a chunk of it, setting up a puppet government, and enacting de-Ukrainisation policies in the east, the people being invaded do not have a right to self-defence?

                    Change “de-Ukrainisation” with “de-Ba’athification” and that’s the argument I have been pitched since 2003, yes. Totally legitimate and 100% justifiable, so long as you can claim an existential threat to your motherland.

                    You can say what you will about the Russians and their ham-fisted efforts at mitigating the conflict. But when NATO is proposing the extension of short-range missiles into your next door neighbor’s territory, they at least had a better “can’t let that smoking gun become a mushroom cloud” argument than anyone in DC did twenty years ago.

      • privatized_sun [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination

        (woke neoliberal voice) “Biden is RACIST! He is cruelly removing the agency of Mexicans to cross the border to sell their blood. Blood work is work you fucking Stalinist authoritarian!”

    • mounderfod@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      taking sides in the rich man’s wars

      It’s not like I (or most people) want the war to continue and people to die, we just don’t want Russia to be able to just invade countries and take land as they please. If an end can be brought to the war that ensures that Ukraine maintains their own territory then obviously that is the ideal scenario

      I suppose you may be inclined to point out the hypocrisy of an anti-imperial stance from someone from a Western country but I wouldn’t support my own country if they were invading a nation for personal gain as in this case

      • SexMachineStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why did Obama and his shriveled sentient fleshlight Biden overthrow Yakunovich a decade ago?

        Ukraine would still have Crimea and the Donbass. There would be no civil war. Ethnic Russians would continue to live in Ukraine as normal without a gun to their back, as would the rest of Ukrainian people. There would be no Azov or Bandera worship. No ceasefire violations or Minsk treaties being broken. Most importantly, Russia wouldn’t be at war with Ukraine and millions not needing to flee. No aspiration for Ukraine to join NATO. No SMO. But :amerikkka:.

        :PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS:

        Death to America

      • tuga [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        If an end can be brought to the war that ensures that Ukraine maintains their own territory then obviously that is the ideal scenario

        Emphasis on “ideal”