Indeed. How dare people have a different interpretation of geopolitical events? Don't they know that world events are all straightforward cartoonish good vs evil storylines where the good guys are 200% good and the bad guys are 300% bad?
There is only one interpretation of an event like one country invading and stealing territory from another.
Russia invaded Ukraine and stole Crimea.
Nobody is contesting what happened, they're contesting why it happened.
Why is irrelevant. Imagine if people argued over if a murderer killed someone because they felt like it or because they looked at them funny. See how pointless the question is? Do you understand how no sane person would argue about that?
I like how the only reasons you give are obviously wrong. If a woman is being horrifically abused by her husband and she kills him in self-defense, it doesn't matter why she killed him because the fact that she killed him is all that matters?
Why is because Putin is a greedy ass.
(And does anybody have a suggestion for better hosts to move my account to?)
You could go back to Reddit lol
I am trying to avoid places run by idiots, guess I have to keep moving
Yeah, the Iraq war wasn't that bad either, Saddam was asking to be invaded. There were lots of grounds to prevent the unification of Vietnam too, you need to look at the geopolitical interpretations of the event /s
Good job proving my point by posting examples of popular positions in the US that turned out to be bullshit. So yeah, the different interpretations turned out to be right. If this was 2003, I'm sure I'd be shouted down, mocked, down-voted, and called a "tankie" (or, I suppose "terrorist lover" to be more accurate to the time) for saying we shouldn't invade Iraq because clearly the only correct interpretation is that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
Cool, I'm not american, so I too disagreed with the invasion at the time, as did most people and governments in Europe and most American allies at the time warned the US not to do it. The american justification for invading was bullshit, as is russia's. The difference is that nobody stood up to the US at the time and now there are a group of countries that at least have an interest in helping Ukraine uphold international law.
Between then and now, nothing changed in international law, I'm just applying it consistently. As you said, bullshit geopolitical reasons to invade a country can be brewed till the end of time, but starting a war with another country is objectively the greatest war crime, because it paves the way for the lawlessness that enables millions of other war crimes, like murder, rape, torture, forced deportation.
I wasn't talking about you personally. My point is that geopolitical situations are more complex than the people here on their high horses would like everyone to believe. Russia is wrong for invading Ukraine and should get out. We should also see how to prevent this in the future, but people are apparently content with the "crazy dictator" explanation. Okay, so how do we prevent crazy dictators from getting into power? The US had played a strong influence in Russia ever since the fall of the USSR and it could be argued that Putin is a result of US policy toward Russia. Is there no merit in examining events from this angle?
I think there is merit in separating two things which are only related if they serve your point.
Look, I also read Shock Doctrine and watched Adam Curtis' recent footage of the fall of the USSR, I understand what russia has been through and how the US gloated about "winning" the Cold War. From there up until 2014 you have a lot of actors, from the IMF to the homegrown oligarchs living the ancap dream to Yeltsin destroying russian democracy in 93 (should any country have intervened then?) and other forces that shaped a path that was only shaped by the US with neglect, greed and giving bad examples, but the US is not russia's caretaker, nor should it have been.
From 2014 onwards and the annexation of Crimea, the West just upped their neglect to the maximum, kept western media quiet about Girkin's failed campaign in the Donbas (and let russian media have a party presenting its own views unopposed) and pretended that nothing was happening because we were busy with other things and really didn't want to get into a fight with russia. And since it was just a hybrid war, we mostly told Ukraine to STFU, like we did Transnistria and Georgia. Meh, "it's the russian sphere of influence", "Crimea used to be part of russia", maybe if they have this and we deepen our economic connections, they'll stop and be brought to reason, let's keep Ukraine neutral, maybe that will work...
After Feb 2022 there was no margin of doubt that russia would only stop claiming more territory if it was forced to stop by force and the sooner the better. Anybody who hasn't changed their mind about russia's intentions after seeing russia attempt to storm Kiev is never going to change their POV on this. After that, russia's word lost all crediblity, so there was a mask-off moment and all of putin's speeches just sounded like "Bin Laden" with nukes to me, but maybe you like his batshit hypocritical critique of "satanist" american imperialism.
I have no idea what the basis for negotiation with russia is going to be now, because it can not end this war feeling that this brazen aggression was worth it, since they will come back to finish the job when they are better prepared (russia is great at glorifying the sacrifice of its people for bits of land in history books as an example for the future generations) nor can it accept that it already wasn't worth it, because they imagine that after what they did, defeat means more 90s hardship for them, so here we are đź’€
US foreign policy basically created Russia as it exists today, an imperialist capitalist country with it's own ruling class competing for the world's resources. So just as all imperialist hegemons have done, Russia is invading a sovereign nation. As always there's a context that embodies the politics of the time.
US created modern russia
(and everything else that happened since 1989 that goes beyond america bad)
modern russia is an imperialist country that competes for the world resources
(it has never stopped being so and Poland+Baltics warned us and we didn't listen)
There's a context, but the fact is that countries should be stopped from invading (and annexing) other countries, no matter what their sob story is.
If some disturbed kid goes on a rampage on a school, first you stop the shooting, then you investigate wtf caused it to start and stop it happening again, maybe some other school kids bullied him...none of it matters once it got to the shooting part.
I could say the same for Napoleon, for Hitler, for Vietnam, hey look, here's Chomsky on that:
The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it.
When you take the context into account, maybe it helps understand why it's happening, but it's still a war crime that has to be stopped.
PS: if you think the world can withstand going back to 18th century multipolar conquest politics with nuclear weapons on the table, you don't appreciate the miserable suffering that means for most of us. The nuclear era only allows one or 2 poles, more than that and you get an unstable solution. So russia better stop it, go back and cozy up to China, because it's not getting its empire back if we can help it (that's one of the few things China and the US agree on).
Regarding negotiations, I've seen the position "Russia out of Ukraine, NATO out of existence" which I think would generally be fair, but I don't think it'll actually happen since there is an interest in prolonging the war.
lol, NATO out of what? If you want NATO gone, you're gonna have to replace it with something, since it is the closest thing to a European army and as much as I'd love for armies to be unnecessary, after what russia has done there is no way that NATO is going away, even if the US suddenly disappeared. The day the US has a stroke and leaves NATO, Germany, Japan and Korea will have nukes ready to deploy in a week. People underestimate the utility of the US sucking up all the responsibilities with defense that come with hegemony, but I suppose you don't, since you understand geopolitical nuance.
Exactly. Russia proved the only thing that will stop them from invading their neighbors is force, and Hark believes other countries will willingly give up their own defense after this multi-year demonstration? The only thing keeping Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from a Russian invasion is NATO. No way in hell are they giving that up.
That you can't imagine a world without NATO or an equivalent speaks volumes.
No, you need to imagine that Europe has as much of a right (a need, actually) to have an army coordination structure as russia does, what world do you live in? What are we going to have? 30 independent armies? That's how we got the napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2. Turkey membership has kept Greece and Turkey from going to war. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean, how about russia disbands its own army? How about that, can't you imagine a world like that?
Ah yes, the European country known as the United States of America.
So you're okay with having nazis and pedos to encourage "different interpretation"?
nazis and pedos? What the hell are you talking about?
Just a different interpretation, bro.
What's wrong with this comment section is that most of the people chiming in have an opinion wholly formed by the nightly news program they watch and nothing else. I'd rather have universal health care than spend a trillion dollars every year policing ten other countries, personally.
I’d rather have universal health care than spend a trillion dollars every year policing ten other countries
Correction: The US spends more per-capita lining the pockets of health insurance execs than every other country.
Exactly The idea we should allow a free nation to fall to Russian invaders, just so we can throw extra money at health insurance executives, is laughable.
What's 'tanky' is arguing for your own impoverishment, which is what you're doing when you try to defend our country spending a trillion a year on war in ten other countries.
And then another 100+ billion on another country's war, that we're not even fighting in. That 100 billion could keep people cool in a heat wave, or fix a state's broken power grid, or put clean water in Flint, Michigan. But no, you'd rather we neglect our own people instead.
War spending is 100% why we don't have universal health care in this country, and we are the only country dropping a trillion-plus a year.
War spending is 100% why we don’t have universal health care in this country,
Rurals that worship misogynist inheritor orange blobs that like Putin and Kim Jong Un are why we don't have universal healthcare.
I want my universal healthcare, AND, in this particular case, I want overseas Nazis blown to smithereens with nice expen$ive Patriot missles.
It is kind of funny that people throw around the word "tankie" so meaninglessly when the US has the largest military spending in the world by far and is thus literally the most "tankie" i.e. enforcing their will with military might.
Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means
Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state.
The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen.
I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term?
But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.
Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?
Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending.
But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.
Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.
Indeed. How dare people have a different interpretation of geopolitical events? Don't they know that world events are all straightforward cartoonish good vs evil storylines where the good guys are 200% good and the bad guys are 300% bad?
There is only one interpretation of an event like one country invading and stealing territory from another.
Russia invaded Ukraine and stole Crimea.
Nobody is contesting what happened, they're contesting why it happened.
Why is irrelevant. Imagine if people argued over if a murderer killed someone because they felt like it or because they looked at them funny. See how pointless the question is? Do you understand how no sane person would argue about that?
I like how the only reasons you give are obviously wrong. If a woman is being horrifically abused by her husband and she kills him in self-defense, it doesn't matter why she killed him because the fact that she killed him is all that matters?
Why is because Putin is a greedy ass.
(And does anybody have a suggestion for better hosts to move my account to?)
You could go back to Reddit lol
I am trying to avoid places run by idiots, guess I have to keep moving
Yeah, the Iraq war wasn't that bad either, Saddam was asking to be invaded. There were lots of grounds to prevent the unification of Vietnam too, you need to look at the geopolitical interpretations of the event /s
Good job proving my point by posting examples of popular positions in the US that turned out to be bullshit. So yeah, the different interpretations turned out to be right. If this was 2003, I'm sure I'd be shouted down, mocked, down-voted, and called a "tankie" (or, I suppose "terrorist lover" to be more accurate to the time) for saying we shouldn't invade Iraq because clearly the only correct interpretation is that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
Cool, I'm not american, so I too disagreed with the invasion at the time, as did most people and governments in Europe and most American allies at the time warned the US not to do it. The american justification for invading was bullshit, as is russia's. The difference is that nobody stood up to the US at the time and now there are a group of countries that at least have an interest in helping Ukraine uphold international law.
Between then and now, nothing changed in international law, I'm just applying it consistently. As you said, bullshit geopolitical reasons to invade a country can be brewed till the end of time, but starting a war with another country is objectively the greatest war crime, because it paves the way for the lawlessness that enables millions of other war crimes, like murder, rape, torture, forced deportation.
I wasn't talking about you personally. My point is that geopolitical situations are more complex than the people here on their high horses would like everyone to believe. Russia is wrong for invading Ukraine and should get out. We should also see how to prevent this in the future, but people are apparently content with the "crazy dictator" explanation. Okay, so how do we prevent crazy dictators from getting into power? The US had played a strong influence in Russia ever since the fall of the USSR and it could be argued that Putin is a result of US policy toward Russia. Is there no merit in examining events from this angle?
I think there is merit in separating two things which are only related if they serve your point.
Look, I also read Shock Doctrine and watched Adam Curtis' recent footage of the fall of the USSR, I understand what russia has been through and how the US gloated about "winning" the Cold War. From there up until 2014 you have a lot of actors, from the IMF to the homegrown oligarchs living the ancap dream to Yeltsin destroying russian democracy in 93 (should any country have intervened then?) and other forces that shaped a path that was only shaped by the US with neglect, greed and giving bad examples, but the US is not russia's caretaker, nor should it have been.
From 2014 onwards and the annexation of Crimea, the West just upped their neglect to the maximum, kept western media quiet about Girkin's failed campaign in the Donbas (and let russian media have a party presenting its own views unopposed) and pretended that nothing was happening because we were busy with other things and really didn't want to get into a fight with russia. And since it was just a hybrid war, we mostly told Ukraine to STFU, like we did Transnistria and Georgia. Meh, "it's the russian sphere of influence", "Crimea used to be part of russia", maybe if they have this and we deepen our economic connections, they'll stop and be brought to reason, let's keep Ukraine neutral, maybe that will work...
After Feb 2022 there was no margin of doubt that russia would only stop claiming more territory if it was forced to stop by force and the sooner the better. Anybody who hasn't changed their mind about russia's intentions after seeing russia attempt to storm Kiev is never going to change their POV on this. After that, russia's word lost all crediblity, so there was a mask-off moment and all of putin's speeches just sounded like "Bin Laden" with nukes to me, but maybe you like his batshit hypocritical critique of "satanist" american imperialism.
I have no idea what the basis for negotiation with russia is going to be now, because it can not end this war feeling that this brazen aggression was worth it, since they will come back to finish the job when they are better prepared (russia is great at glorifying the sacrifice of its people for bits of land in history books as an example for the future generations) nor can it accept that it already wasn't worth it, because they imagine that after what they did, defeat means more 90s hardship for them, so here we are đź’€
US foreign policy basically created Russia as it exists today, an imperialist capitalist country with it's own ruling class competing for the world's resources. So just as all imperialist hegemons have done, Russia is invading a sovereign nation. As always there's a context that embodies the politics of the time.
(and everything else that happened since 1989 that goes beyond america bad)
(it has never stopped being so and Poland+Baltics warned us and we didn't listen)
There's a context, but the fact is that countries should be stopped from invading (and annexing) other countries, no matter what their sob story is.
If some disturbed kid goes on a rampage on a school, first you stop the shooting, then you investigate wtf caused it to start and stop it happening again, maybe some other school kids bullied him...none of it matters once it got to the shooting part.
I could say the same for Napoleon, for Hitler, for Vietnam, hey look, here's Chomsky on that:
https://chomsky.info/20060109/
When you take the context into account, maybe it helps understand why it's happening, but it's still a war crime that has to be stopped.
PS: if you think the world can withstand going back to 18th century multipolar conquest politics with nuclear weapons on the table, you don't appreciate the miserable suffering that means for most of us. The nuclear era only allows one or 2 poles, more than that and you get an unstable solution. So russia better stop it, go back and cozy up to China, because it's not getting its empire back if we can help it (that's one of the few things China and the US agree on).
Regarding negotiations, I've seen the position "Russia out of Ukraine, NATO out of existence" which I think would generally be fair, but I don't think it'll actually happen since there is an interest in prolonging the war.
lol, NATO out of what? If you want NATO gone, you're gonna have to replace it with something, since it is the closest thing to a European army and as much as I'd love for armies to be unnecessary, after what russia has done there is no way that NATO is going away, even if the US suddenly disappeared. The day the US has a stroke and leaves NATO, Germany, Japan and Korea will have nukes ready to deploy in a week. People underestimate the utility of the US sucking up all the responsibilities with defense that come with hegemony, but I suppose you don't, since you understand geopolitical nuance.
Exactly. Russia proved the only thing that will stop them from invading their neighbors is force, and Hark believes other countries will willingly give up their own defense after this multi-year demonstration? The only thing keeping Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from a Russian invasion is NATO. No way in hell are they giving that up.
That you can't imagine a world without NATO or an equivalent speaks volumes.
No, you need to imagine that Europe has as much of a right (a need, actually) to have an army coordination structure as russia does, what world do you live in? What are we going to have? 30 independent armies? That's how we got the napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2. Turkey membership has kept Greece and Turkey from going to war. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean, how about russia disbands its own army? How about that, can't you imagine a world like that?
Ah yes, the European country known as the United States of America.
Yes, you should also cry about Australia and Israel being in Eurovision, but not russia: https://piped.video/watch?v=m7MZs-QdrFI
Eurovision is the strongest military alliance, I reckon.
You are a fuckin dunce mate. Dude is making solid points and you can't get out of your "hurr durr, usa bad" for even 1 comment
Solid points like comparing NATO to Eurovision? It's a compliment to be called a dunce by the likes of you.
So you're okay with having nazis and pedos to encourage "different interpretation"?
nazis and pedos? What the hell are you talking about?
Just a different interpretation, bro.
What's wrong with this comment section is that most of the people chiming in have an opinion wholly formed by the nightly news program they watch and nothing else. I'd rather have universal health care than spend a trillion dollars every year policing ten other countries, personally.
The US spends more per-capita on healthcare than almost every other country. Making sure a free nation isn't overrun by Russian invaders is not the reason the US healthcare system sucks.
Correction: The US spends more per-capita lining the pockets of health insurance execs than every other country.
Exactly The idea we should allow a free nation to fall to Russian invaders, just so we can throw extra money at health insurance executives, is laughable.
What's 'tanky' is arguing for your own impoverishment, which is what you're doing when you try to defend our country spending a trillion a year on war in ten other countries.
And then another 100+ billion on another country's war, that we're not even fighting in. That 100 billion could keep people cool in a heat wave, or fix a state's broken power grid, or put clean water in Flint, Michigan. But no, you'd rather we neglect our own people instead.
War spending is 100% why we don't have universal health care in this country, and we are the only country dropping a trillion-plus a year.
Rurals that worship misogynist inheritor orange blobs that like Putin and Kim Jong Un are why we don't have universal healthcare.
I want my universal healthcare, AND, in this particular case, I want overseas Nazis blown to smithereens with nice expen$ive Patriot missles.
It is kind of funny that people throw around the word "tankie" so meaninglessly when the US has the largest military spending in the world by far and is thus literally the most "tankie" i.e. enforcing their will with military might.
Either you are willingly redefining a word, or you don't even know what it means
Tankie means a person who supports an authoratian communist state.
The word comes from the Tianamen Square Massacre, where tanks were used to silence and kill protester, which some people think didn't happen.
I know the original meaning, I'm simply pointing out the irony that people using the term for everyone who disagrees with them are more likely to support military action against people than the ones they're calling "tankies". The term has been so overused that it has lost all meaning. It's basically the liberal version of conservatives calling everything "woke". Notice how these stupid catch-all words always seem to be spammed toward the left of whoever is using the term?
But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.
Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?
Perhaps my original post was worded poorly, but my point is that people are throwing the term around meaninglessly at anyone who criticizes US foreign policy. I also noted that it is made funnier because the US enforces its will around the world with the highest military spending in the world by far. In effect, a global authoritarian government. Again, which people who throw the term "tankie" around meaningless are defending.
But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.
Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.