44
Who wants war with Russia?
(lemmy.ml)
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9844277
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
44 points (60.4% liked)
Memes
55576 readers
1397 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Trust me, nobody here is itching for a fight with russia. Most of us just want to live our lives without worrying about a bully neighbour driving tanks (or riding donkeys, heh) over borders.
Ukraine isn’t fighting because we asked them to or because we want them to. They’re fighting because they woke up to an invasion.
And we will continue to support them because if you let a country grab land by force (let alone reward them for it, witkoff you idiot), it won't stop there. It makes the whole region less safe. So no, it’s not about wanting a war. It’s about trying to prevent a bigger one.
Fucking Europeans are in no position to complain about other countries grabbing land by force and getting away with it. It's rank hypocrisy to act like the antipathy to Russia has anything to do with principled opposition to "bullying neighbours" or "making the region less safe" when Europe is still shoveling money at Israel, protecting the people who butchered Iraq, Libya, Syria, and plenty more, and never found an American invasion they didn't support until they realized it might negatively affect them.
Western countries have absolutely earned a lot of the criticism they get. Iraq, Libya, and the good ol' US of A's approach to the Middle East are pretty glaring stains, and Israel’s conduct has raised (justified) outrage, enough that even its own leadership now faces ICC warrants. Europe isn’t some angelic bloc either; it’s just that it does have legal and political structures (ECHR, ICC support, actual protest cultures, real accountability mechanisms) that at least give people tools to contest state violence.
None of that makes Russian aggression suddenly noble. Pointing out Western hypocrisy doesn’t magically turn Putin into a principled anti-imperialist. He’s running an authoritarian system that jails dissent, murders critics and wages a war built on territorial revanchism complete with deliberately targeting civilians.
If I have to choose between flawed democracies with internal pressure valves, independent courts and protest movements… or authoritarian states that treat brutality as a virtue, then I’ll stick to pushing the countries and systems I’m actually part of to live up to their ideals.
Hypocrisy is a problem, but open militaristic authoritarianism is way worse. The answer to western failures isn’t to excuse someone else’s.
Yup, for instance they've earned the critism that they have no business claiming their opposition to Russia has anything to do with principles or morality.
Never said it did, so I can only assume you're saying this to attack a strawman.
Which are all things that Europe both do and support when it's them and their allies doing it. What is your point?
All things that Europe emphatically does not represent when it comes to the middle east. Millions of Iraqis, Libyan, and Palestinians did not get to vote in your shitty rigged elections or get protected by your biased, billionaire owned courts when Europe decided to massacre them.
For that matter, Europe doesn't even grant those things domestically to people with actual leftist politics; the moment an actual leftist party attains any real viability, it's getting banned and it's leaders arrested. The moment you try to an effective protest movement that might actually affect change, you're getting beaten and arrested by armored storm troopers.
And by that you mean,: spruik them as righteous world police while demonizing their geopolitical enemies. You haven't achieved one iota of movement in pushing them to live up to their ideals and you've already moved on to declaring how much better they are then their enemies.
Let's be honest here; you're support for Europe comes from the fact that you personally benefit from their policies, not because their policies are more beneficial in general.
Mate, the hypocrisy is Europe's open support for militaristic authoritarianism! See, this is what I mean; you don't think open militaristic authoritarianism is a problem when Europe does it; you just don't like that the hypocrisy undermines Europe's self-granted Mandate from Heaven.
No one said it was, though you seem to be saying that the answer to Russian failures is to excuse the West.
I think you are also treating every western action as if europe personally designed it, when in reality europe’s record is more mixed. It has responsibility for serious failures, but in most recent cases it was not the main driver. Libya is one of the few examples where european governments pushed an intervention themselves. In lots of others, like iraq or afghanistan (or the US's overall middle east approach), european states mostly followed the US out of strategic dependence rather than some unified desire to dominate the world. That does not make the outcomes less tragic, but it does mean europe isn't operating on the same logic as russia, which treats territorial expansion as a central political project.
That'a why I separate western crimes from the structure of the political systems behind them. Europe has elections that can actually change governments, courts that can and sometimes do push back, space for journalists, and protests that occasionally work. None of this helped people in iraq or gaza, which is exactly why those policies deserve criticism, but it still gives european citizens real levers to pressure their own governments.
Russia superglues those levers in place. Opposition is criminalised, media is destroyed, and elections are for show. That is not a small difference. It affects what citizens can realistically do and how the state behaves both at home and abroad.
So for me it is not about excusing the west or pretending europe is ‘moral’. It is simply that western hypocrisy does not magically turn russia’s invasion into something justified or admirable. I can condemn Iraq, Libya, Gaza and still condemn a war aimed at erasing a neighbour. That is not loyalty to Europe, it is just refusing the idea that one set of atrocities cancels out another.
Nope, I'm just referring to the actions that Europe enthusiasticly supported and engaged in.
No more mixed than Russia; but for some reason (chauvanism), you only engage in this kind of equivocation for Europe.
And that's the true hypocrisy of Europeans on display: other countries do bad things, but Europe just is "responsible" for "failures". It's not that Europe deliberately went out and did something bad, they're the good guys, after all! They were just trying to do the right thing and unfortunately failed!
It's disgustingly self serving. And solidly demonstrates my point.
And in many cases it was. Not that it matters that it "wasn't the main driver" when it still enthusiasticly participated and supported these actions. "Sure I helped operate the gas chambers, but they weren't my idea, I'm just a smol bean!"
You would never in a million years attempt to make these kinds of disgusting excuses for anyone except Europe, and you know it. This is the break is hypocrisy and you know it. Russia also has it's strategic reasons for invading Ukraine, famously, but I'm betting you don't find that compelling. You only find my compelling when it's Europe going "we had to help commit genocide, it was in our interests!"
Actually it means they operating on the exact same logic.
And Europe treats global domination by Western capitalist hegemony as a central political project, which is much worse.
Yes, I've already noted that you hold a complete double standard. Now you're just coming out and saying it.
Bullshit: your elections are tightly run on rails to make sure that noone other than some flavor of liberal capitalist can win. Any time a serious leftist party becomes viable, it gets banned, or worse, all of the information people need to make informed decisions is filtered through media owned by oligarchs, and, must importantly of all; the people Europe fucks over the most don't get to participate in your bullshit elections. If Russians voted to invade Ukraine, would that be ok? They basically did; Putin is extremely popular, and all of the most popular opposition politicians also support the war in Ukraine. This is not at all different to Europes genocidal brutalization of the middle east.
Europe has not prosecuted a single one of its genocidal war criminals. Not one; most of them still walk around as prominent national figures. They're putting Tony Fucking Blaire in charge of Gaza.
In the sense that Europeans will express the against something they were after it has happened, just not in a way where they will compensate the victims or not do it again.
Stop. Stop this gross double standard. You would never in a million years do this for anyone other than Europe
Oh ok. That's much worse. That means that European citizens in general are responsible for the modern Holocaust they support. That makes Europe much worse than Russia.
Oh, but it makes you personally feel empowered, and you only give a shit any your personal interests, as I pointed out earlier.
As opposed to Europe, where those levers are consistently fixed in the same place as Russia, but allegedly the citizens could move them if they chose to, but they don't. Which, again, is much worse.
Like every viable leftist party in European history.
As opposed to simply giving oligarchs direct control of it, like Europe does.
Yeah, real elections are when you can choose between two ghoulish capitalists with the same genocidal foreign policy. And the people you exterminate aren't allowed to participate at all.
Correct, it's not a small difference: it's no difference at all.
I'm sure that means so much to the people of Iraq and Palestine. The people of the imperial core choose to exterminate them. This is just straight up white supremacy: genocidal violence isn't as bad if white people get to vote to commit it.
Yes it is: you've demonstrated a whole sale double standard in the standard you apply so that you can excuse the West. A double standard of, essentially, "it benefits me personally, so it's brutalization of foreigners is not as bad"
Literally no one ever said it did, as I already fucking told you
Would you advocate for Russia retaliating against Europe for it's genocidal actions in Ha a, just as you advocate for Europe retaliating against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine? No, of course you wouldn't: you reserve that status of moral world police for Europe, because you have a double standard and do not actually condemn Iraq, Libya, and Gaza in the same way you condemn Russia. Even though what Europe is supporting in Palestine is even worse than the invasion of Ukraine, you treat it differently. It's just an "oopsie", a failure to live up the superior platonic European mortality you treat as axiomatic.
No, the loyalty to Europe is the gross double standard and the implication that Russian atrocities cancel out Europes worse atrocities.
Keep cooking, the clarity of thought is refreshing
You are treating any distinction I make as if it is an attempt to portray europe as moral. It is not. europe has taken part in serious crimes and carries responsibility for them.
My point is that political systems are not identical. Europe’s structures are too often captured by interests and often fail, but they still allow for leadership changes, court rulings, investigations and public pressure. Even in eastern europe elections have been re-run and parties banned after proven foreign interference. These mechanisms are limited, but they exist. Russia removes them entirely.
Acknowledging this difference is not excusing western actions. It's also not claiming russia’s motives are justified. It's just recognising that foreign policy, internal structure and accountability aren't the same thing.
If your view is that any distinction is a double standard, then we are not working with the same categories, and there is no productive way to continue the comparison.
And back to the original theme - we don't want nor need war in europe, but russia (a fully captured state) seems hell bent on bringing it. I suppose that when it eventually falls, it will fall hard.
Because you are. You're trying to portray Europe as having the moral right to police Russia's behavior.
Though not, apparently, in any way that you think should prevent Europe from acting as world police or open them up to retaliation.
No, your point was that your political system is better, and thus Europe should not be judged as harshly. But it isn't and it should.
Yes, which is why they are not different to Russia.
I already went into detail about why that's bullshit. You completely ignoring that to just restate your bullshit assertion is the height of cowardice.
If you're seriously going to try to argue that Europe has only banned leftist parties after "proven foreign interference" then you're straight up just a McCarthyist fascist and you might as well start ranting about Judeo-Bolshevick conspiracies, because that's where you're at politically.
As I stated before (and you ignored), that is worse for Europe then: having these mechanisms and choosing never to use them to prevent genocidal atrocity is worse than not having them at all.
Lol. That's nonsense: your whole argument has been in service of excusing western actions. Literally your whole point was that Europe's atrocities arnt as bad because European chose to commit them.
My view is coming up with a bunch of rationalisation to defend European atrocities, which are vacuous at best and outright false at worst, is a double standard. Because, as I said before (and you ignored), you would never in a million years try to come up with these kind of rationalisations for any country other than European ones.
A great many Europeans are absolutely frothing at the mouth for war with Russia. And it's true that the rest of you don't want it in Europe: but in the middle east instead.
Yeah; once again, Europeans are in no position to accuse other countries of being "hell bent on bringing war" (or of being fully captured).
Uhuh. Once again. You might as well start ranting about Judeo-Bolshevick conspiracies and white, European destiny.
You are reading motives into my argument that aren't there. I am not claiming europe is moral, has a mandate to police anyone, or deserves immunity from judgement. I am not trying to justify Iraq, Libya or Gaza, and I am not asking anyone to view those actions as lesser.
My only point is that political structures differ, and that this matters for understanding how states act and how their citizens can influence them. That's not a moral hierarchy and not an excuse - just a factual distinction. If you reject the idea that internal political structure makes any difference at all, then we are working with entirely different premises.
At that stage there is no meaningful basis for comparison or discussion. I have stated my view and you disagree. OK.
You really think I'm going to keep taking you seriously after bullshit like this?
Fuck off, you lying white supremacist troll. Take your fascist "agenda" elsewhere.
You got epistemolgoically toasted
Nah, the guy clearly has an agenda and can't control himself. I'm just trying to stay consistent.
Classic white supremacist: their beliefs are just normal, everyone who disagrees with them "has an agenda".
Fuck off, at this point you're just admitting that you consider any disagreement with you to be inherently invalid: an agenda
Aww diddums... you failed to steamroll someone and started with abuse instead. It's a tactic, strongly hinting at an agenda.
And this is what all your attempts at high minded apologism are reduced to when actually faced with any push back.
You took to abuse and a silly claim on a side thread.. and you got a fitting response.
Lol. You lying scumbag; you were the one who started with the abuse and silly claims.
Jesus christ lmao
For future reference:
https://discuss.tchncs.de/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=798981
It had nothing to do with Rule 2 (avoid excessive reposting, nor rule 1). It was just arbitrary, and if one were cynical, perhaps intended to support the desired narrative in these parts and bring the thread to an end.
Shrug. Modlogs are indeed interesting.
Oh you are staying consistently cooked & euro-supremacist
Europe didn't even participate in the Iraq war, that's a common misconception. It was just the US, UK, Australia, and Poland. And in Poland's case they contributed just 200 troops. Sure just like with Palestine they didn't actively oppose it meaningfully, but the Iraq war was like 90% American, 9% British, 0.5% Australian, and 0.05% Polish.
This is straight up misinformation. For a start, UK and Poland are both European, and for another, a huge number of other European countries sent troops to Iraq, and you're straight up lying to say otherwise.
This is straight up genocide denial now. Europe actively, rhetorically, and materially supported (and continues to support) the Palestinian genocide and the fascist ethno state carrying it out. The disgusting fake narrative that Europe were just this uninvolved third party who meant well but were too cautious to take action is Genocide Apologist Bullshit.
tfw even Dubya remembers which countries invaded Iraq and libs on lemmy don't
UK and Poland are both European, but the UK has left the European Union and is clearly America's plaything so we can safely exclude them from the category of "Europe", while Poland sent so few troops it became a meme. Most of the European countries who sent troops did so only after a unanimous UN security council resolution, supported by both Russia and China.
Oh and Norway apparently committed military equipment, so there's that.
As for opposition, my country's prime minister has been couped for defying American foreign policy, and the leading opposition are deeply-ingrained America-sycophants. Practically speaking it's unlikely that any opposition would succeed and even if it the most it would do is cause a mild inconvenience. The issue of Palestine is even more fraught than Iraq because of Epstein.
Which is irrelevant, they are still part of Europe.
Most of Europe is.
No you can't, that's fucking absurd.
"Oh, they only did a little bit of brutal war of aggression that killed millions, that's fine."
Fuck off, you would never in a million years try to make this kind of argument for a country outside of Europe.
Oh, so you admit you straight up lied about the rest of Europe sending troops to Iraq. And which un resolution are you referring to? (As if Europe has ever respected un resolutions)
So your country is a play thing of America then, and a vessel of its genocidal empire.
The issue of actively helping to commit the modern Holocaust is not "fraught because of Epstein". What a fucked up thing to say. Though not surprising given your earlier genocide denial.
Depends on when you count, but for the Iraq war specifically that's about right for the official foreign coalition forces.
However, the Iraq war was just one front of the nearly dozen wars that were being fought as part of the "Global War on Terrorism" which NATO perpetrated, the short list of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, but arguably also including Camaroon, Philippines, Libya, Kashmir, etc.
Sure, of Europe only UK and Poland were officially deployed to Iraq, but they were actively collaborating with the rest of NATO in a much broader conflict and don't ask about where the mercenaries and security consultants that were used heavily during those conflicts came from.
It's not a misconception, it's misdirection.