this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
586 points (94.1% liked)

World News

32368 readers
508 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It's not supporting Russia to be critical of one-sided narratives or to call for peace for the sake of minimizing loss of life.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Russia is welcome to GTFO at any time.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The war was already going on before Russia sent troops in.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that makes it okay for them to escalate it, how?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn't say it's "okay," but the blame isn't just on their side.

If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I'd like to condemn Russian escalation, but it's a little hard for me to do so if I don't have an answer to that question.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.

Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?

If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (39 children)

Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it's a fair point.

If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".

Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could've be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

They did do that. My coworkers aunt was finally granted Russian citizenship and was ecstatic. They granted citizenship to a number of refugees in the war.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, Ukraine was fighting corruption. Russia entered on the side of... corruption.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Fighting corruption" is an interesting way to describe sustained artillery bombardments of civilian targets.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hoo boy wait til you see what Zelenskyy was up to.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are you defending oligarchs?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Seems like you are. Zelensky was in the paradise papers

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what that has to do with shelling cities, are you suggesting he was hiding in one of the buildings or what?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Look, the heckin' wholesome slava ukrainis didn't know where he was so they had to shell everywhere! It's like playing Battleship, except it's mostly other random innocent people that you hit

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Yes, but the liberal pro-EU protestors got sidelined by literal neo-Nazis. The following President was basically handpicked by the US Ambassador. There's plenty of western media from 2015-2021 about the integration of Azov into the Ukrainian military structure, the rehabilitation of World War II collaborators, and the suppression of the Russian language. The people of the East are, in principle, just as entitled to wish to join Russia as western Ukraine is to join the EU.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

It's so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.

Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a "counteroffensive." Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don't need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they've lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia's demands before more lives are needlessly lost.

Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.

As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from 'The Bad Country,' they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they're facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ohh won't someone think of the poor invading war criminals!

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Ukrainians are dying too, including ones drafted against their will. Maybe you should fight in their place before asking them to die on your behalf.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

History started in feb 2022

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not so one-sided as you think. Ukraine used civilians as human shields https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

? We have tho? My country has sent like $80 billion dollars so far to the invading war criminals.

Free the Donbass red-fist

load more comments (6 replies)