The cold, hard truth in the war between Russia and Ukraine today is that Ukraine’s last-gasp offensive has failed, and no amount of spin will change the outcome.
Liberals always try to force leftists to ‘pledge allegiance’ to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I’ll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
I’m saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else’s homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn’t make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that “starts a war” is the one that rolls their tanks first.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so.
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico…) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can’t even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says “nah,” they’re just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that’s the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn’t it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
Do you acknowledge that russia invaded and started a war against Ukraine?
This means nothing to an adult, it means everything to a child.
I’m saying this is low effort bait.
Ok. Then say it if you think that. Reverting to a picture as an answer is rarely a valid response imho.
It is when the person being replied to is clearly engaging in bad faith and refusing to answer the simplest of questions.
Ditto
Liberals always try to force leftists to ‘pledge allegiance’ to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I’ll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
That they started by taking Crimea, exactly.
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
Are you saying who started the war isn’t relevant? Why would you not want to determine this to have a full picture of the situation?
I’m saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else’s homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn’t make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that “starts a war” is the one that rolls their tanks first.
Am I a liberal? News to me. I seek no pledge from you. Stop chasing shadows.
What war was Ukraine involved in with russia?
You sure sound like one.
What can I say? I cannot change the way you process information.
Perhaps you were wrong?
You could start by actually answering any of my questions.
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
Allow me to answer your question with a question: Do you believe in the right to self determination of people in the Donbas?
So no answer then?
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico…) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can’t even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says “nah,” they’re just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that’s the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn’t it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
You still did not answer my question:
What constitutes - in your eyes- “properly monitored”?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
You literally did not answer the question.
What do you consider to be “properly monitored”?
Also I have never once posted or even visited the Nazi shithole that is 4chan so nice ad hominem.
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149