Biden is a lame duck president with NO PUBLIC MANDATE and subterranean approval rating, he got ousted by his own party before the election for being mentally incapacitated, his defense against a Justice Department inquiry is he’s too old and senile, his party just got BTFO in a national election. No NATO or NATO proxies have ever launched long range missiles into Russia in living memory. How is this guy brump fit for office

STOP EATING CRAYONS AND DO YOUR FUCKING JERB. “Senile old man sends young people to WW3 out of spite”

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I can’t even imagine what any of them are thinking. Many of them lived through the entire Nuclear age. I can only assume they’re so high on their own supply they just can’t imagine Washington disappearing in a flash of hot light and hard radiation.

    • xiaohongshu [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      5 days ago

      They’re calling Russia’s bluff. That’s what they’re thinking. They’re betting Russia wouldn’t dare to escalate into a nuclear war, and they’d be right (most of the time), because no sane country would want that.

      • freagle
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        5 days ago

        Russia won’t escalate to nuclear, but it will have to escalate, which is going to ruin the rest of Ukraine all for a chance of getting more intelligence on Russian capabilities.

        • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          small price to pay for the US. Not like anyone in Ukraine can complain. Not like any westerner ever sees anything about the consequences. Not like the lackeys “in charge” in Ukraine will say anything about it. The US will just pay off their most loyal puppets and move on to the next country to destroy.

      • FortifiedAttack [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yeah well up until Russia stops being sane, like the gerontocratic West has. For example, by assassinating Putin and having someone far more extreme take power.

        I don’t think we’re getting out of this one. This is the end of the line.

    • LemmeAtEm@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      5 days ago

      Many of them lived through the entire Nuclear age.

      That’s just it though, considering that they are the leaders of a giant death cult, many of them probably feel like they got shortchanged when the USSR fell without any nuclear armageddon, not even a little bit. angery This could be Biden’s last chance for the Christmas he always really wanted.

      • Maturin [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        5 days ago

        I’ve also wondered this. The generation that was promised they would all die in nuclear armageddon so they treated the planet and everyone and everything as if all life was going away anyway not being denied their just deserts.

        This also makes the whole Huckabee choice much more foreboding…

    • BashfulBob [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 days ago

      I would be less worried if I lived in DC than if I lived in Poland or Germany or god-forbid Kiev. Ukraine manages to get a big bomb into Krusk and Russia retaliates with a fuck-off armed ballistic missile into one of those guys.

  • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Are they trying to escalate it so much that Trump can’t withdraw? Not that Trump would even get to decide one way or the other. Or that he even wants to.

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Who cares.

    It’s a weapon that Ukraine has, they’re at war, it’s not a nuke, it ethically doesn’t matter whether they made it themselves or received it as a gift*, of course they’re going to shoot it at a target in the country that destroyed their infrastructure and turned part of their countryside into a no-man’s-land and is occupying places they lived just 3 years ago.

    If you wanna get mad at American weapons being used overseas in illegal wars, there are plenty being dropped on defenseless people, out of Israeli aircraft, every single day.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The weapons require command and control by NATO personnel, and guidance by NATO satellites. NATO is actively participating in an attack on Russian soil, using Ukraine as a buffer. This is a massive deal for anyone that does not want to die in nuclear hellfire. Russia has responded to this escalation by unveiling a previously not known to exist Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon, in an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile called “Oreshnik”, with Multiple Re-entry Vehicle and/or cluster warheads that can strike all of Europe, striking a weapons factory in Ukraine with this weapon yesterday. Again, this is a big deal for anyone that does not want to live in Posadas’ version of the future.

    • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The modern Holocaust the US government is committing in Gaza doesn’t have anything to do with whether the Banderite neonazi regime they installed in Ukraine is bad.

      Before this war kicked off properly they were regularly shelling and sending Nazi death squads after civilians, why would you not be mad at that? Why would you want them to be able to remotely bomb civilians in Russia?

      downbear

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        It just falls into the rest of the umbrella of “war is war” to me. There’s nothing wrong with a war being two-sided.

        Ukrainians are already the victims of weapons like this. Russian authorities have already targeted apartment buildings and other civilian targets, including knocking out water and electricity for millions. Half or more of the Ukrainian people are going to be plunged into poverty for decades, because of geopolical forces they can’t control.

        Sure, defending the Donbass is good. But that doesn’t make this a black-and-white conflict, and certainly doesn’t mean 20 million people should suffer because the pro-peace candidate they supported (cf. Poroshenko) was twisted onto the warpath.

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 days ago

          So your response is to support the actions of the imperialists? This is where you ultras always go fully off the rails. You get so wrapped up in your purity you somehow manage to spin it around to support the US again, what a coincidence

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        That has the same energy as “they shouldn’t have voted for Trump”.

        Collective punishment is bad but if it’s going to happen, it’s better for it to not be unilateral. Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.

          Ukronazi regime in fact uses every weapon they can, even the scarce and expensive missiles for terror attacks on civilians, and every future weapon they will get will be also used in the same way. Plenty of examples here and here.

        • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Collective punishment is bad

          Yeah, agreed

          but if it’s going to happen, it’s better for it to not be unilateral.

          Are you saying it would be better if multiple parties decided which groups should be collectively punished, or that it’s better for Russian civilians to suffer collective punishment than for them not to because of collateral damage during the current war between Russia and Ukraine?

          Plus, it’s unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.

          What would possibly make you feel this way?

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            I’m saying “Russia gets to strike Ukrainian targets but Ukraine doesn’t get to strike Russian targets” is not only unfair but laughable. They’re at war. They were escalated against first by a state actor.

            Just because it’s in alignment towards the wrong side of history doesn’t mean we should revoke principles of international relations that deny special privileged status to any country.

            There is ethically no further line being crossed by Ukraine in firing conventional missiles at Russia, when Russia has already fired hundreds of the same at Ukraine, regardless of whether or not the latter is construed as “defense”. When the missiles are flying, the people launching them have no right to say “but we’re off-limits”.

              • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                4 days ago

                That is an absolutely bad-faith argument.

                In the post-2022 stage of the war, Ukraine are not the aggressors. A blanket categorization of Ukrainians as “nazis” is no better than a blanket categorization of Russians as “orcs”. Sure, the state apparatus is vaguely aligned with NATO and the EU. That doesn’t mean that Ukrainians aren’t defending themselves now to some degree. The imposition of “we are invading and striking your country and you are not allowed to strike us back” is contradictory to the principles of multipolarity.

                Afghanistan had the right to strike back at America. Iraq had the right to strike back at America. Ukraine has a qualified right to strike Russian military targets.

                • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  I don’t think all Ukrainians are Nazis, but their government and military are Nazi aligned, have deliberately targeted civilians repeatedly and will absolutely use these missiles to continue doing that.

                  It’s not better for them to be able to do so.

                  They also aren’t “vaguely” NATO aligned, they’re a NATO proxy.

    • freagle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The reason this is a big deal is because Russia is the 3rd biggest military in the world, and Ukraine would not be able to strike Russian territory with long range missiles unless the USA intervened. This creates a potential casus belli between Russia and the USA and if Russia chooses to ignore it then it sets the conditions for additional escalation of the threat against Russian national security. It’s not a moral issue.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.

        (Yes, I know history didn’t start in 2022. There is an undeniable discontinuous shift in the nature of the conflict at that point though.)

        Russia has been fully aware of the dynamics of supply between Ukraine and the USA, all along. Nothing has changed besides rockets that can go somewhat farther. If it’s not a nuke and not a military alliance, it doesn’t draw more powers in, it just makes the war more costly.

        When one does a special military operation on another country’s undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.

        • 666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.

          States. Do. Not. Have. Rights. This should go without saying on this site. The actions of the gov’t of Ukraine, or more relevantly of the United States in support of Ukraine, are justified only insofar as they are beneficial to actual human beings. Risking escalation here pretty clearly fails that criterion. The situation on the ground right now is that the front has been largely stagnant for 2 years, and the incoming US admin has little appetite for continuing the conflict. This is an opportunity for a negotiated end to the war, not a time to be blowing things up even further. This isn’t “emancipating” Ukrainians, it’s just extending death and destruction in a moment where there’s a real path towards winding it down.

          When one does a special military operation on another country’s undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.

          Sure, and if we’re fortunate, the Russians have accepted that possibility and will get over it. On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country’s undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            it’s just extending death and destruction in a moment where there’s a real path towards winding it down.

            I totally agree: it’s disappointing and ill-advised, but not unprecedented.

            On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country’s undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?

            If Ansar Allah shot a Russian-made missile at the US (or even at Camp Lemonnier) that would be funny and righteous.

        • freagle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 days ago

          You are ignoring that this is proxy war, and by so doing you are confusing the entire perspective.

          If this was not a proxy war, Russia would invade Ukraine because Ukraine took unilateral action to threaten Russia’s national security.

          In such a situation, the USA would not be sending the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget to Ukraine. Russia would stop Ukraine from its unilateral action and the war would end.

          Instead, we have the US acting through NATO acting through Ukraine threatening Russian national security. Russia attacks Ukraine not because of Ukraine’s unilateral action but because of the actions of the USA through Ukraine as a proxy. This proxy war remains a proxy war so long as the USA does not act against Russia directly. If the USA acts against Russia directly it becomes a direct military conflict between Russia and the USA.

          The USA is salami slicing this conflict, attempting to find the point at which it can no longer the escalate the threat to Russia without Russian retaliation.

          Ukrainian emancipation was truncated by the right-wing color revolution that was managed by the USA. Russia’s invasion has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty and everything to do with Ukraine being a proxy of the West.

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            The game of chicken was inherent since January 2022, arguably even before. Ukraine as a state outside of either regional defense treaty and situated in between both has pointed towards increasing involvement/meddling of the regional powers.

            A war being in progress involving a country from one bloc is an opening for the other bloc to conduct indirect opposition. This was known from the start of the SMO, and arguably accounted for from the same time too.

            A few missiles hitting a depot in Bryansk is not going to change the course of the war. If it was going to, you’d expect that the USA would have encouraged this to be done sooner. It hasn’t broken any continuity woth the rest of the conflict, and isn’t going to change much besides maybe a proportionally tiny amount more of destruction on the Russian side of the border. That was my point.

            • freagle
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              If you don’t know the history of this game of chicken, then I don’t know why you’re in here trying to argue. This game of chicken has been ongoing since shortly after WW2.

              After the dismantling of the USSR, this game of chicken is pretty clear cut - the USA has been marching a transnational nuclear military staffed and led by originally by Third Reich officers that has as one of its primary mandates the maintenance of fascist partisan groups throughout Europe to use against any leftist government and also against Russia and Russian regional hegemony.

              The game of chicken has always been a proxy conflict and neither side has dared allow an advanced weapon to be used against the other side’s sovereign territory.

              The use of ATACMS against Russian territory is a net new escalation in this 80-year game of chicken. Will it change the course of the war is not the question. It is an incremental escalation of intent that either is appeased or is rebuffed. And Russia has demonstrated since 2014 that it has abandoned the 100% appeasement strategy.

              As we all know, appeasement doesn’t really work, so Russia now has a serious problem on their hands with ATACMS landing in their territory. It doesn’t need to be tactically transformative for it to be a strategic watershed.

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 days ago

          “Both the imperialists and anti-imperialists are bad! If you don’t like escalating imperialism then why do you support anti-imperialists??!”

          I’m so tired of you western chauvinists in leftoid clothing

    • StalinIsMaiWaifu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      If you wanna get mad at American weapons being used overseas in illegal wars, there are plenty being dropped on defenseless people, out of Israeli aircraft, every single day.

      Porque no los dos?

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Porque no cambiará casi nada en la guerra en Ucraina, el pueblo ruso ya puede defenderse, no creo que las fuerzas rusas tienen el derecho único u especial para lanzar bombas hacia ciudades y bases ucrainas.

    • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Ukraine isn’t using it, American personnel are. This is America shooting missiles directly at Russia, qualitatively changing the conflict from a proxy war to a direct war.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Ukraine isn’t using it, American personnel are. This is America shooting missiles directly at Russia, qualitatively changing the conflict from a proxy war to a direct war.

        Copying this out because you’re known to move the goalposts and ignore anytime it gets pointed out.

        Ukrainian military personnel are not firing the missiles? American personnel deployed in Ukraine are? Or are American personnel firing the rockets from a NATO base? Either way, you’re saying that the article and its details are a total fabrication- no “authorization” would need to be given to Ukraine if it were American personnel firing the rockets.

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yes American personnel are the only ones who can operate this technology. It is Joe Biden pushing the button to launch a close range missile strike into Russia. Sorry you love imperialists so much you refuse to accurately describe them, but that’s a you problem.

          NATO personnel are also operating Patriot SAMs and other NATO equipment throughout Ukraine. If you doubt this you are beyond naive

  • abc [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 days ago

    we need to ban the usage of ‘WW3’

    [this user supports Russia but does not think they’re gonna start firing off nukes anytime soon - happy to be proved wrong but I don’t think anyone on Hexbear.net has their eyes on Putin’s nuclear briefcase]

    • freagle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      WW3 is not shorthand for nukes. It’s shorthand for multiple countries engaged in a simultaneous hot war on the basis of alliances and mutual escalation. Russia v Ukraine is not WW3. Russia v Ukraine and USA is the beginning of WW3. Russia and China and Iran v Ukraine and USA and Israel and UK and France and Germany is definitely WW3. No nukes required

      • abc [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        yeah i’m aware of what would entail a ‘ww3’ scenario and that nukes aren’t shorthand for such - i still think we need to ban the usage of it and no i will not be elaborating

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

        Is it Russia v Ukraine and the USA, if the USA is shipping mortars and 7.62 rounds to Ukraine?

        There is no “missile nonproliferation treaty” to break, either.

        • freagle
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Those mortars aren’t being used to attack Russian territory. They are used to attack Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor here so to date the predominant Ukrainian behavior has been rebuffing the invasion.

          The problem will arise when anyone tries to majorly harm Russia. Ukraine tried and it was silly. They have lobbed some drones but again, minimal impact and nothing that threatening. Once the USA starts arming Ukraine for total war against Russia (meaning lobbing effective missiles, bombers, and the like) to destroy critical infrastructure inside Russian territory, it’s a serious problem for Russian national security that it will need to address.

          If the USA intends to launch total war on Russia, via proxy or otherwise, then we have hit the next escalation point towards WW3.

    • REEEEvolution
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      now with added North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator

      1. Kim Jong Un is not a dictator. Again you show that you have no clue. Just vibes.

      2. No statement by the DPRK or Russia regarding the matter. You base your assessment on rumors spread by the ukrainian government. The ones who made up the Ghost of Kiev. Told the world that the seperatists were shelling themselves. That Russia shelled itself in a nuclear plant. That Russia had lost 500000 soldiers and was sending in human waves armed with shovels.

      You never stopped and thought: “Wait, that is not a reliable source!”

      Western press told you that was the truth, so you took their word for it. Because when was the last time the west lied? Aside from Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Xinjiang region, Vietnam, Korea, the USSR, China in general, Communism in general, Ukraine, Palestine, etc.

    • Sodium_nitride
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 days ago

      claims that firing ballistic missiles somehow escalates this conflict aren’t well thought out

      It escalates the conflict because under Russian law it puts Russia directly at war with NATO and opens up more spheres of conflict. The Russians will most certainly retaliate, likely by sending weapons to anti-western groups.

      without World War 3 breaking out

      Yes, I doubt this will on its own cause ww3. But playing with fire is dangerous either way.

      they’ve been firing those at high value targets in Russia from day one of getting invaded

      Russia is already at ear with Ukraine. The Ukrainians firing at Russia with their own weapons is thus not an escalation.

      since Russia is still attempting to conquer Ukraine

      No it is not and it never was. Everybody knew from day 1 that conquering and holding to all of Ukraine would be infeasible and the war was actually about NATO expansion.

      North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator

      Pure ideology. Just speculation. It wouldn’t even be an escalation if this were happening because the western fascists have been sending over their mercenaries and troops to Ukraine for the past 10 years.

        • Sodium_nitride
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 days ago

          I find that doubtful. They went for Kyiv during the first month of war. If you go for the largest city and the capital, that typically is a conquest.

          Yes they went for Kiev to topple the government of Ukraine and force a quick surrender, as has been their stated aim. It does not mean there would be any possibility of conquering Ukraine and holding it by the Russians.

          The prevailing opinion seems to be that Ukraine was attacked by Russia in 2022 and before that, parts of Ukraine were seized by Russia in 2014.

          You appear to be forgetting about the maidan coup, the shelling of donbass and the arming of Ukraine by nato, all of which the Russians have said threaten their national security since Ukraine is literally at their border.

          imaginary bunch of “western fascists”.

          Y’all are commiting a livestreamed genocide in gaza and have slaughtered tens of millions of people at the altars of capitalism since the end of ww2. No need to imagine western fascism.

          hard boiled imperialist

          When will liberals learn what imperialism is? When we say “we oppose imperialism” we mean that we want to destroy the transnational system of capitalist superexploitation of the world’s natural resources and labour by a handful of “first world” nations. Not “we want to reify nations and nation states”.

          He decided that Ukraine must be under Russia’s control.

          As opposed to the Americans, who don’t want Ukraine under American control, who haven’t been buying up Ukrainian capital assets for dirt cheap for 30 years now.

          The revolution which Yanukovich accidentally provoked was inconvenient to him, so he decided to start military action. Seeing that the West was using toothless sanctions and harsh words, he decided to go all in - but miscalculated. His yes-men said they could do it, but they couldn’t.

          I bet my left testicle on you not having read even a single word that came out of the mouth of any member of the Russian leadership and instead just making up all of this headcannon and fan fiction based on nothing.

            • REEEEvolution
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I’m an anarchist.

              So you have no clue.

              If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself. When Israel started bombing civilians, created a famine in Gaza and destroyed their infrastructure, I said: that’s no longer self defense.

              See, you have absolutely no clue about anything. Just going with the recent thing, no attempt of learning history. This did not start last year. it started over 70 years ago, by what would become the zionist entity. But that seems too long for you to look into, so you rather tell the ones affected by ethnic cleansing and genocide how they should resist. Can’t have the brown people make you feel bad, after all!

              Just vibes based politics.

              There is no “right to defend itself” for occupation forces. There is however the right to resist occupation. Your vibes based analysis lead you to the literal opposite of reality.

            • Sodium_nitride
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              4 days ago

              Maidan revolution

              A revolution from capitalist neocolony to capitalist neocolony?

              Imperialism… is conquering and dominating foreign lands and assembling empires.

              Assembling empires is the only correct part of your definition, because it happens to be a tautological statement. How can you be an anarchist and use this definition of imperialism, since all states by definition dominate territory? “Foreign” and “domestic” are purely artificial categories and using them only legitimates statist ideology.

              The president of Ukraine fled to Russia but the parliament remained in place, and provided a way of triggering new presidential elections. By that time, Russian troops had taken control of Crimea

              The Russian annexation of crimea happened after the president fled, as a response to the coup.

              Putin declared Crimea to be part of Russia and stated that he’d never give it back

              This was done via referendum. As for the rest of your comment, it is mostly just a run down of the specific events leading up to the war, ignoring the geopolitical reasons for why the different actors took the actions they did, instead looking at the events in a vacuum.

              If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself.

              Am I right to assume that the previous 70 years of Israeli settler colonialism had no impact on your opinion of how much Israel has a “right to defend itself”?

              they have a right to repel the invaders, and this incldues the right to strike across borders at the invader’s command, logistics, storage and production.

              Which they were already doing with their own weapons and soldiers. The escalation in question is about the use of American weapons, which will likely trigger some kind of (probably not nuclear) response from the Russians, who have the possibility of sending weapons to anti-western militant groups, or to take other actions.

            • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              If you really want to know - when Hamas attacked Israel, I said that Israel has the right to defend itself.

              Thanks for just admitting you are a stupid as shit liberal with terrible intuition and analysis. Ever considered listening to us as we were correct the entire time and never got duped into supporting imperialist genocide?