this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
31 points (77.2% liked)
Asklemmy
48019 readers
1447 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
God forbid a sovereign nation can choose its partners...
Well can Eastern Ukraine?
Because as a "sovereign" nation, Ukraine is an amalgation nation of two bordering existing countries of which the partner organisation NATO's sole existence in question is to be enemies with one of the two bordering countries and thus used deadly violence to suppress any dissent from its Eastern half.
This is in stark contrast to the US full-scale invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and further invasions of Libya, Syria and Palestine which WERE sovereign nations, where no such dilemma took place.
Bush' full scale invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
Bush' full scale Afghanistan invasion was based on searching a fugitive.
The full scale bombardment of Lybia was because the US did not like Lybia's leader.
Same with Syria.
For Palestine, it's Israel that wants to genocide the country.
The violence started when the Russian puppet president walked away from an EU trade deal that he literally campaigned on making, then cracked down on the resulting protests. Then an actual Russian created rebellion started. Calling that "suppressing dissent" is disingenuous as fuck.
"it's not suppressing descent if you accuse the people you're supressing of being Russian agents first"
Thank you for that insight, senator McCarthy.
Ukraine population: overwhelmingly supports trade with eu.
You: CIA backed color revolution!
Russian soldiers: taking geotagged selfies in Ukraine by the dozen, revealing overwhelming Russian military involvement in 2014.
You: Nuuu, putin wouwd nevewww ππ
It's a really convenient narrative based on the fallacy of homogenizing Ukraine. Let's take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here's how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Either you're intentionally spreading misinformation here, or you're far too ignorant to discuss the subject you're attempting to debate here.
Reality is whatever I want it to be
"Suppressing descent is fine if you claim the population 'overwhelmingly supports' you"
Why even bother with elections at that point? Just claim anybody who wouldn't vote for you is a RuSsIaN AgEnT
Support for eu trade was high enough that yanukovych campaigned on it. Are you saying that's not true?
Also are you saying contracted Russian soldiers weren't in luhansk and donetsk in 2014 and onward?
"Yanukoviych ran on trade with EU, therefor it's OK to violently suppress dissent" is certainly a take.
"Are you saying there aren't communist spies in America?" -SkyezOpen defending McCarthyism.
Misrepresenting my stance and refusing to engage with the points isn't the win you think it is.
Just because it's not framed in the most generous possible way doesn't make it a misrepresentation
Lol, who was it that taught shitlibs like you that anyone not immediately agreeing with them is equivalent to "refusing to engage with the points". I engaged with your points just fine, they're just bad points.
Mccarthyism is accusing with little or no evidence. There's piles of evidence of Russian involvement. Hand waving doesn't make it disappear.
There's piles of evidence of communist spies operating in America during the cold war too, mate.
So you're saying it's all fake?
Are you saying there were no communist spies in the US during the cold war?
Are you allergic to making hard statements? You accused me of mccarthyism, which involves accusing people with little to no evidence. There is evidence of 6,000+ Russian regulars in Ukraine in 2014. That's not "dissent," it's an invasion. I'm not saying there weren't genuine separatists in those regions, I'm saying it was hardly an organic movement.
"there were Russian operatives in Ukraine, therefore all dissent is illegitimate and can be crushed with lethal force."
If you can't understand how that is the same as justifying McCarthyism by saying their were communist spies in America, it's because you're being willfully obtuse.