this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
610 points (94.1% liked)
World News
32351 readers
812 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They never respond with actual examples.
Edit: Lmao they've responded with a post that points out Ukraine has been killing people in the Donbas before the war started and a post that highlights the many offramps to the current conflict
This is why nobody likes you guys and wants to defederate with you. Really great job everyone.
Lol! You're wrong because...
I think you forgot half of the sentence.
Ceding land to a foreign aggressor is not a viable off-ramp. Get real.
Allright, I guess we'll just wait until all the able-bodied ukrainians have been killed (despite themselves not wanting to fight) and then the land will be ceded. I'm sure its much better if thousands more die first!
So Ukraine should just lay down their arms and let an authoritarian, borderline oligarchy like Russia have their way with the country?
Great logic bro. Can't argue with that.
Lots of assumptions on what would happen to Ukraine, and you are also implying that Ukraine is not an "authoritarian" (a word with no meaning) borderline oligarchy, so that's fascinating.
But yeah, even if these assumptions were true, then yeah I think it's better for people not to die in an unwinnable war, than for people to die and then for the same thing to happen. I'm a big fan of people Not Dying actually.
Great. Tell that to the Russians who occupied Bucha.
What's their @?
I'm glad you can make light of a tragic situation.
Good thing the bucha was debunked, but if it hadn't been I'd probably have urged you to look inward since you're the one who tried to use the tragedy as a way to score a cheap point, despite it not detracting from my overall arguement
This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.
You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.
Ironic when liberals act how they claim communists act. I mean I know it makes sense logically, that it's all projection with scratched libs, but it's still so weird to see in practice
I mean the Ukranians are doing suicidal infantry attacks against entranched positions with conscripts ffs, it's just too on the nose
In the post-ww2 period we had a long period of people being anti-nationalist as a result of experience of what nationalism and this obsession with borders instead of people causes.
The current crop of liberals have no experience or connection to this and are incredibly easily led by the ultranationalists into supporting them, because nationalists share a priority with ultranationalists.
The primary issue here is nationalism. We need an absolutely massive anti-nationalism movement. Anti-nationalism is anti-fascism.
Ok so why don't you teach all us damn talkies a lesson and explain to us how you stop the war then other than libs usual line of Russia just gives up and goes home for no apparent reason.
Because currently either land changes hands at some point or everybody on one side dies and libs keep insisting the first option is a no go.
So please, inform us. We're all very excited to hear what you have to say.
That's what Lenin did and it saved countless lives. The Tsar kept feeding people into a meat grinder and the communists took power of the promise that they'd end the war, and they had to accept heavy concessions but they did it. Which position do you agree with, Lenin's or the Tsar's?
it's an extremely viable off-ramp in fact that's how the majority of wars have ended
as Ukraine have tried military force and it didn't work then an outcome that doesn't relly on the Russians just deciding to give up on the whole idea for no reason might be better alligned with reality
Worked for the Taliban twice.
Who is running Afghanistan right now?
The same group that did when the USSR invaded. The same group that did when the US invaded. They're terrible people, but you can't argue their strategy wasn't effective.