I find it funny that Americans (esp. Republicans) who love to «win» at all things, would be fine to allow Russia to win against the west in Ukraine. I think if they decide to stay on their isolationist path, Lavrov’s propaganda from earlier in the week will come true, and the US will seize to be a superpower. «Greatest country in the world»? Starting to look pretty weak to me.
The US is speed running the Empire game. They blitzed through the early game, beat a super power, became the dominant military force in the world, dominated in culture, and are now seeing how fast they can decline before the entire country implodes on itself.
After two years, it's pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it's useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said "We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible."
The actual truth is that it's NATO that's been constantly expanding towards Russia. It's also NATO that's been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western "help", Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can't wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
The actual truth is that it's NATO that's been constantly expanding towards Russia. It's also NATO that's been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Western leaders? Name them.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it's territory.
Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Because Russia attacked them.
Now, thanks to western "help", Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can't wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
If the west didn't run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would've been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
That's complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
Now that's what actual false equivalence looks like.
Pretending this just didn't happen is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
Yes, it was and there's overwhelming evidence for it.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
Are you just incapable of using google, I guess that would explain why you believe in nonsense. Here you go. First of all Russian economy is now rapidly growing while the west is going into a recession. This is not a country that's showing any signs of being exhausted:
I avoid random X/Twitter links like the plague, since that platform is full of Deceptive Imagery Persuasion. Any video or photo can be taken out of context to mean the wrong thing. I could not find the CNN's original video, maybe someday it will be easier to search for them.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Now I see the foundations of your beliefs I can better understand your opinions. I still do not agree with them though, because I believe those foundations to be somewhere between flawed and ideology-driven.
First of all, Euromaidan was a coup, by it's definition, but it was not instigated by the west, which I assumed was your opinion.
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
I yet or bothered to translate the German or French links, but a lot of other articles I actually mostly agree with: Ukraine will struggle to achieve their objectives without western aid despite past successes.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
I understand that these Internet debates are not for changing minds of my opponents, but to show my points to people who are not yet decided.
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
The foundations of my beliefs are that the west saw itself as the winner of the cold war after USSR dissolved, and decided to renege on all the promises that were made in the 90s. This created increasing tensions with Russia, and eventually led to the war we're seeing play out in Ukraine. This is a proxy war between NATO and Russia, and it's following the script that was outlined by RAND.
The west made a huge miscalculation thinking that it could defeat Russia militarily and economically, and now the whole thing is starting to backfire. NATO is finding that it lacks the industrial base to sustain the conflict. Russia managed to reroute its trade away from the west, which caused immeasurable economic damage to Europe. The world outside the G7 has been increasingly aligning towards Russia and China and away from the west. This proxy war is heralding the end of the unipolar moment that US enjoyed and ushering in multipolarity.
I have been using Google for long enough to know that it often shows us what we want to see, not that which is most likely to be correct. :)
Have you considered that this might be why you still think that Ukraine is winning despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Regarding Russian economic data you seem to be flaunting, Russia has made it hard for outside sources to verify any of it.
Every mainstream western outlet, including the IMF, agrees that Russian economy is growing. No serious economists dispute this.
You seem to derive a lot of your opinions from mearsheimer.substack.com source but the sources the author uses to prove your points often come from rt.com which is like, the worst source for this discussion.
Mearsheimer is just one example, and he is a preeminent political scientist in the US. The reality is that there is propaganda in the west just like there is in Russia, and western media often omits covering things that RT covers. Simply dismissing information based on the source is frankly absurd.
Incidentally, Mearsheimer gave an entire lecture back in 2014 predicting the events in Ukraine that are currently unfolding, seems to me that he might know what he's talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I will, however, refrain from posting on lemmy.ml in the future, because I can see that you are a mod of several communities on this instance and your overall conduct in this post has been rather childish and disrespectful. I feel like mods should hold themselves to a higher standard.
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I'm on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it's a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Are you saying you can't? Are you maybe saying that the only sources you have are Russian propaganda? Or are you just being condescending because you can get away with it on a Russian sympathizing instance?
What I've read so far about each of those cases is that nato was deployed to either halt a genocide or suppress a terrorist organization. Both of those things are still defensive actions.
Though I guess they could be interpreted as aggressive by countries that are pro-genocide and pro-terrorism, so it makes perfect sense that a Russia/China instance would be pissing themselves.
Your fears are based in the aggressive nature of the countries you simp for, so do carry on. Nothing I say is going to convince you one way or the other if you're already eating the propaganda cereal.
This is just far right bullshit. They made a peace deal and Nazi Ukraine immediate reneged on it as soon as Russia left Kiev. The ignorance here is astounding.
Here's an idea go sign up as a volunteer in Ukraine and fight yourself instead of cheering on for other people to die for you, you disgusting sack of shit.
Russian propaganda painting Azov as all 45 million people in Ukraine when in reality they represent a percent of a percent.
It's like saying we should invade the US because some of them are self professed neonazis. Absolutely bonkers unless you wanted to fabricate a reason to invade in the first place
Azov has 900-2500 total members and are recognized as local militia only. In no way is supplying Ukraine's military equivalent to "giving Azov weapons" unless you explicitly want a reason to justify killing Ukrainians.
Want to guess how many police officers we have nation wide here? Or maybe you have another whataboutism for me?
Do you have a Nazi police department? Interesting.
Azov has a standing in the official army. The coup the west backed was fought for by your freedom fighters. Go back under your rock Nazi apologet.
Your the one defending Nazis. And you hold your foul mouth shut when they were ethnic cleansing eastern Ukraine but I guess they don't get the same defense from you. Thank Russia for saving them from your side.
Btw, I still won't reply and can't see yours, but I just wanted you to know I think it's cute that you're compulsively down voting my comments. It's the sign of someone with no other recourse lol
Jsyk. You don't kill the cat because it has fleas. Unless you were looking for a reason to kill the cat in the first place.
Caring about the cat doesn't equate to defending the fleas unless your goal is to get rid of the cat.
I know this doesn't matter to you, because you've already attached your identity to the Russian genocide justification. But someone has to advocate for the other 44.995 million of them. It's clear you'd rather them dead.
Anyway, enjoy being blocked. I have no more time to give to a genocide sympathizer.
These two conflicts have a lot of points of views. In russia ukraine its a bit easier because russia attacked ukriane so its pretty clear that russia is the "evil". But with israel and gaza a lot of people confuse palestinians with hamas and israeli people with the israeli government. Ad for why ukraine supports israel when they are much closer to gaza i think its because they really need the us and eu to help so they didnt even have an option.
I think it's more that people confuse the Israeli government with "the Jewish people", when the truth is that they are very separate. The Israeli people are somewhere in the middle. There seems to be a bunch of them who are quite supportive of their government's actions.
I think Americans in general don't see it as a difficult choice to support Ukraine
Politicians find it difficult because Republicans are pro-russian, and both parties are heavily aligned with Israel. So Ukraines the only one really seeing any push back.
I was about to call you neive but then I thought, maybe your right. What if the politicians arnt pro Russia, they are just pro money.
So they are taking bribes from anyone, be it Russia, isis, pharmaceutical companies or big oil. We just catch them out as Russia are the worst right now
I think that's worse than them "just" being pro Russia 😔
Of course politicians are pro-money. You don't get to be a politician in a capitalist country without being pro-money, wealthy, and well connected to others who are wealthy.
Bribery is in most cases legal in the US. It's called lobbying, or campaign donations, or the revolving door between public service and private industry. It's also an unsolvable problem given the current economic paradigm. The capitalist class will determine government policy in one way or another, as the government is designed to protect the interests of the capitalist class. The will of the working people is completely irrelevant.
Russian money, insofar as it does exist in US politics (there's astonishingly little of it compared to other sources) is drawn to attention by a media that is owned by the same companies and people that are bribing in a much larger way. They call attention to the few thousand dollars a Russian immigrant may or may not have donated to the NRA or a Republican candidate to distract from the billions of dollars Wall Street spends on candidates and kickbacks to make sure they're the ones who control US economic, financial, and foreign policy. It's easy to call attention to Russian money because the same media has created an environment in which anything Russian is pure evil, so people don't even question the content of the story being told. This has its roots in Cold War anti-Soviet propaganda, which has been dug up and repackaged to use against a post-2008 "non-aligned" modern Russia.
I never said these two things were related nor mutually exclusive.
I'll be more explicit.
Russiagate was a work of fantasy telling a story about a supposed Manchurian candidate, rather than admitting that the Democratic campaign made mistakes and that Trump spoke to genuine issues the US population has (of course without solutions but that's not the point here).
Bribes Campaign donations and favours are given to candidates and office holders all the time by interest groups, companies, and wealthy individuals. A donation by JP Morgan or a Koch has nothing to do with the Russiagate fairytale.
No it shouldn't. It should never have existed. Palestine should exist and yank settlers can fuck off home. Jewish people can live in Palestine. Zionists should get the same treatment as Nazis.
Yeah let me know when anyone actually poses an existential threat to Israel and then we can talk. Until then, they deserve zero aid while perpetuating genocide.
Conflating genocide with "defense" is zionist talk.
Honestly surprised that I hear this so much. For context, I am not a Republican, so I'm not defending them, but every Republican I've talked to has been anti Russia to the max. They might disagree on the amount of money that we send Ukraine ("Why are we sending billions over there when we can't even figure out our own country" comes up a lot) but I've never heard a single one say anything in the support of Russia. It's so confusing when I hear people say conservatives are pro-Russia... Different ecosystems I guess
I do believe they were referring quite specifically to the politicians, since on every side it seems politicians are disconnected from their constituents and do things those constituents absolutely wouldn't (this isn't some bizarre both-sides argument btw, just general frustration at the state of things)
It would work. Senator Sanders forced a vote to require the State department to report on Israel's humanitarian violations or immediately withhold aid, and the Senate quickly voted 72-11 against the proposal. That is probably the most bi-partisan vote we've seen in decades. But don't go thinking that the enormous American political machine actually represents the will of the American people. They represent corporate interests, and hardly even try to hide that anymore.
Yes, a number of users on Lemmy have made that claim, and this article shows references of it being done by various media outlets and other political pundits.
David Friedman, the conservative former US ambassador to Israel during Donald Trump’s presidency, went further, tweeting before Monday’s protest: “Any American Jew attending this rally is not a Jew – yes I said it!”
It was the Democrat president that bypassed congress twice to send munitions to Israel during it's active genocidal campaign so no, it's not Republicans.
Also, Republicans want to send weapons and money to Israel and not to Ukraine, while Congressional/Biden admin Democrats want to do both. So with Republicans you get double the genocides.
