Lol. Where was this post when Russia drafted citizens to continue the invasion?
The Ukrainian "invasion" is to force Russia to withdraw from the war Russia started.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49251 readers
865 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
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
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you've asked here doesn't match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not "war bad", but specifically that Ukraine's counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to "defend themselves".
There's a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.
- This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
- The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn't change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
- As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
- Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn't change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia's.
The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be "how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good", to which the answer is "oh fuck off mate"
The question asked in the thread title is really simple and you should try to stay on topic.
The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad.
You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine
You are twisting what i've said. I encourage you to read other people post better because i never made such claim.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”
If you believe that not being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is the equivalent of rolling over and dying you are probably victim of the propaganda. As other have suggested here i advise you to watch drones videos from this war where they roll over and die
Let's go look at your comment history and check, shall we?
Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things
It's not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍
it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what's the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions
Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this "having an army" nonsense, smart!
I'm not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.
If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah
That's not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of "twisting" what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY'S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.
So, veteran here. I've tried to talk people out of joining the military or at least trying to avoid jobs with high probability of seeing combat. Usually the result is they just start prying about what combat is like and make statements about how much they want to experience it.
Another tack I haven't tried but it might be more effective, is to describe how miserable it is to have the stench of a burn pit wafting over you, always wondering if the distant gunfire will move in your direction, being stuck manning a 24/7 watch where if even one person who can do that job dies or is otherwise incapacitated you will be stuck doing 12hr shifts instead of 8. Then you get back home and have to fight tooth and nail for benefits from the country that fucked your life up in the first place.
War is hell, coming home is hell, forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.
forcing that on someone can only be justified if they are literally at home fighting off an invading force.
I believe abolish someone rights is never a good thing. If you are fighting against someone that wants to take these away you have even more reason to respect these rights and stand for them.
I see you'd rather die kneeling than standing.
It's amazing the shit rich old people can convince poor young people to die saying
edit: meant to say 'rich young people on computers thousands of miles away cheering on other people's deaths'
I invite all of you chickenhawk nazi lovers to go die charging a trench in the place of someone who doesn't support your cause and doesn't want to die.
Being drafted (which is forced labour where you additionally have a high chance of being killed or wounded) is always not okay, not just when it is done to invade another country.
Even though op's post history clearly points to the angle they're trying to get across, I'll answer for ya.
You educate the Russians. They're living in a closed room and are being force fed bullshit so Ukraine looks like the bad guys. Once they're educated and realize what the hell is going on, there will be some uproar to them being drafted and forced to fight Ukraine who has done nothing wrong. Maybe then, they'll stand up to Putin and take his fucking ass out and this shit can be over. At that point maybe Russia can turn it around and become a productive member of society.
perhaps should start by taking your own advice, stepping out of your echo chamber, and educating yourself on what's going on https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
edit: Worth noting how despite all the screeching and downvoting, radlibs can't actually make any counterpoints to what Mearsheimer says.
Russia invaded Ukraine. All anyone besides tankies and trolls need to know.
That's right history started in 2022, nothing happened before that. You are very intelligent.
Thank you for the compliment, if you keep reading outside your safe space and opinion articles, you'll get there too!
if only you would take your own advice there buddy, but we both know you won't
Take the L bro, you earned it
says the bro who has no concept of history without a hint of irony
Still going? Lol, pathetic
takes two to tango little buddy
weak
🥱
Dude we couped Ukraine in 2014 and got them to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the 2 independent republics. We were supporting Ukranian nationalism, which is aligned with naziism for quite a while. Decades. Euromaiden happened because of us. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
I think it's more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
It's pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don't take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It's also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it's already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
I actually showed that article about a year ago to a co-worker of mine. LMAO
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
I've read the contents of your link and I can see how one would fall for these arguments. But I can already point to a couple flaws:
It doesn't matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade. Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn't matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Third, this didn't start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn't just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
It doesn’t matter who did what before
this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014
History starts and stops exactly when it best suits my argument
Seems like there are a couple of flaws in your own narrative there.
It doesn’t matter who did what before, Russia had a choice. A choice of resolving their issue in a nonviolent manner through diplomacy, espionage, subterfuge and trade.
Russia did exercise this choice for whole eight years. That's what Minsk agreements were about, and now prominent western officials have come out and admitted on record that the goal of the agreements was in fact to give more time for Ukraine to arm itself.
Instead they chose violence. Thus it doesn’t matter that they had no inkling of wanting to conquer Ukraine (or specifically Putin) or not.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
Second, they absolutely did try to install puppets and Russia-friendly governments before. They succeeded sometimes, somewhat. And the last time those puppets had to flee to Russia of all places to escape the wrath of Ukrainian people.
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
Third, this didn’t start on February 22, 2022, but in 2014, when Russia decided to occupy Crimea. So they didn’t just do it once, but on two occasions. Except the West somehow glossed over the first time on the heels of the Winter Olympics.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution. I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It's absolutely incredible if that's the case.
What you linked does not support the statement that NATO choose violence by not negotiating.
It very clearly does. NATO kept pushing towards Russia for decades after USSR dissolved. Russia tried to find a peaceful compromise with NATO this whole time. Yet, here you are pretending that it's actually Russia that won't compromise.
Stoltenberg openly admits that it was in fact NATO that chose violence and refused to negotiate https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I'm not going to read the whole minutes. Can you quote please what you are referring to?
Last I checked, it was the US that overthrew the democratically elected government and installed puppets. Which is also not exactly the first time that US has done this around the world.
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol' Viktor was peddling.
Oh you mean when Russia annex Crimea in response to US running a color revolution.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there's a string of attacks on territories that weren't actually Russia's in recent history.
I love how you just ignore that little detail there.
I really have to wonder if people like you genuinely believe what you say. It's absolutely incredible if that's the case.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
summed up: well i dont read shit so you're gonna have to spoonfeed it to me so i can spit it out in your face without even tasting it
He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Here you go ^
This seems to be whataboutism. Do you have any evidence for the US causing the euromaidan and subsequent revolution? Seems to me like the people were fed up with the shit that ol’ Viktor was peddling.
here's a detailed explanation with lots of mainstream sources for you https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup
If you think that US overthrowing a neutral government in Ukraine to put in a far right regime that allowed NATO to start building out offensive capabilities on Russia's border is not relevant to Russia pushing back NATO, really don't know what else to tell you.
Did anyone from the West ever conquer anything that belonged to Russia? Russia answered with violence for nothing. Notice how there’s a string of attacks on territories that weren’t actually Russia’s in recent history.
Ukraine descended into a civil war after a US backed coup. The fighting between the right wing western backed government and Donbas started right after it. You seem to be utterly ignorant on the history of the conflict.
Classic distraction scheme. Attacking the person instead of the point. Not even sure why I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and engaged with you.
Except I addressed your "point" which is sheer nonsense.
dude, Russia complained to the UN and obviously NATO and the US many many many many many many times. You're being brainwashed by US media, which is 100% ALL controlled by the CIA. For basics, you should simply look at what Russia's foreign diplomats are saying. They speak clearly and don't bullshit. Weigh what the two sides say. Simply put, the US just makes up childish stories with no factual basis behind them and Russia gives long factual history lessons.
I agree with you on previous points, but you must know for a fact that Russia has a whole department for rewriting history in their favour that didn't fall with the Soviet Union.
That makes your long factual history lessons claim ridiculous, besides relying on historical Russia to justify current carnage is ridiculous.
NATO driven by the US definitively pokes at several beehives, and once those beehives lose diplomatically (because given the pressure we do it definitely is a loss on the world stage not an agreement) they start stinging.
Russia has an history of brutal governments when it comes to warfare, and in Ukraine they show they still don't refrain from uncontrolled barbarism. It's a bed the West helped do, but comes from an expansionist desire of both Russia and the US.
PS: I'm focusing on the US which has more impact world wide, but we just need to see France in West Africa to see the former empires are still doing their old thing under the table. Bunch of power hungry minorities making live miserable for a larger humanity is something we have everywhere.
@InternetUser2012 I am Russian. Believe me when I say: most of us perfectly know what's going on.
We're just scared. That's it.
@drq @InternetUser2012 @index
Yes, we're scared. Of foreign jerks toppling our government again even though they established it here originally. And doing it repeatedly. And they did it in other countries. I'm with Ukrainians. But only with those who fight against NATO and not with it.