• orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.

    I’m sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.

    Do you have the same position regarding the Vietnam war, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or do you only support whichever side is not aligned with the US?

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Vietnam War? You mean the one where a rebel faction backed by Russia rose up against a smaller, recently established pro-Western government, and the US came to the defense of that government, because if they lost the enemy would surely keep expanding more and more across the entire region, and all the peace advocates were dismissed as supporting appeasement? That Vietnam war?

      Yes, we take a similar position on that as we do to this, do you?

    • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The second you call Russia’s actions imperialist you just broadcast that you’re someone who just uses words for their impact and not their meaning and you should be completely disregarded in any conversation on the topic

    • trot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I literally said that

      Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.

      Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

      You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it’s a neat little trick called “opposing the position of your own government”.

      • orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

        I am.

        But do you believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia without NATO’s weapon supply?

        • Sphere [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          He most likely doesn’t believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia with NATO’s weapon supply, and for good reason, given how clearly this is demonstrated by the utter failure of the vaunted counter-offensive. The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).

          • teichflamme@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The mere fact that they are in the act of a counter offensive after Russia tried to blitz then shows that it’s not even close to what you’re describing.

            Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

            • Russia tried to blitz

              The mere fact that you believe this shows how steeped in western propaganda you are

              At no point was Russia’s strategy a blitz, this is a lie meant to equate Russia with nazi Germany and Pitin With Hitler even though it’s still ukkkraine celebrating Bandara as a national hero

              No Russia’s gameplan from the start has been what it has been for almost 100 years, Soviet tactics not that that coked up nazi blitzkreig bullshit

              The attack on Kiev was likely a feint

              Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

              The cope levels are off the charts