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:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This is like saying that the US should've invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There's always another way besides war and violence.

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There isn't always another way besides violence. The German invasion of the USSR was a war of extermination. Laying down and dieing is not morally superior.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough. If you're defending yourself, then I suppose that's true. Which is incidentally another reason Ukraine has the right to defend themselves.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the US dumping tons of weapons is actually helping defend themselves, it just seems to be getting conscripts killed. If they had actually negotiated after that karkiv offensive maybe you could have made the case?

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well it's keeping them having some sovereignty over their own country instead of it falling in 3 days like everyone thought. Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory? That's the question and considering how hard they're fighting, it doesn't look like they do. If the average Ukrainian wants the ability to defend and keep their home, then I want that for them, too.

And war is unpredictable. Maybe Russia will lose the appetite for war soon, or maybe Ukraine will want to negotiate (but I'm sure they want to take what they can before then). Winter is coming.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does Ukraine want to lose a bunch of their territory?

It already has, and not in the way you think. In 2013 Ukraine had a president unwilling to take an IMF deal, and opted for the Russian one. The maidan coup happened and now they have a president who does whatever the money men want.

Even now there's a website up for openly privatizing Ukraine, and the ultimate outcome in a NATO victory explicitly is going to be the privatization of the breadbasket of Europe.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, ya, the IMF sucks and further privatization of Europe is bad. But that doesn't mean you have to support Russia while they bomb and kill civilians or make fun of Ukrainian citizens for trying to defend their home and their lives.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The extent of "support" for Russia has been extremely critical on hexbear. You all just say that anyone not falling over themselves to slava ukraini is a Russia supporting Putin bot.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not in any of the threads that hit the defederated servers at least. I've seen maybe two people from hexbear ever criticize Russia or mention something they did bad, while everyone else constantly shits on and memes on Ukraine and their defense effort. You guys say you do, but don't actually do it.

EDIT: I meant to say *federates severs.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well you've been on lemmy for 3 months, and just started running into us in only the last month, meanwhile we've been chatting and having struggle sessions about this type of shit for years to various degrees. (especially since 22)

Ever since the illegal dissolution of the USSR, Russia has been a capitalist shithole, the treatment of LGBT people there sucks. They are what we made them, politically.

You construe a lack of support for Ukraine with 'shitting' on them. I want to see the US drop support for Ukraine because it would mean that people like you and I stop dying on a daily basis for lines on a map. There have been many chances for a negotiated end, and from where I'm sitting the US went out of its way to blow those opportunities.

[–] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The US did blow those opportunities because the people who own the US government profit wildly from this conflict. With no Afghanistan, they need another endless war to fill their wallets up with.

[–] sharedburdens@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

As always, death to america

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No worries, they're getting the war with China all queued up as we speak.

[–] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah good luck with that lmao

Please someone make it end lol

[–] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Have you considered that maybe that's because of the threads that you pay attention to? Step outside of the Ukraine war stuff if you want to actually test that hypothesis of yours.

[–] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Russia was after lives they would be bombing the shit out of Ukrainian infrastructure. They currently hold the territories where the people who were being bombed by the Ukrainian government live.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have been bombing tons of infrastructure. They've been hitting all over cities, hospitals, dams and reservoirs, etc. They're probably not going to bomb the places they currently control for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean they're not hitting places with civilians they don't currently control.

[–] marx_mentat@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I mean they haven't. You should look at what the US did in Iraq for a comparison.

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are countless of well-documented examples of the American empire sponsoring terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations against Cuba. To this day the American empire upholds an illegal an unprovoked blockade of the island as well as occupying the land on which the Guantanamo naval base and torture black site is placed.

Before the revolution, America ran Cuba as a colony, leeching off the hard work of Cubans. If anything, the history of American relations with Cuba has been one of profound violence.

But okay, most of the times they made sure to put in a middle-man to do the actual dirty work which absolves them of all sin I guess.

That's basically what Russia was doing in Ukraine by propping up pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. But I guess it's fine when they do that, bendy they succeeeded, it's only bad when America does it, because they failed.

And are you saying you would've been fine if the US did a full-scale invasion of Cuba then, because they did all that other stuff? Otherwise, that was all unrelated and besides the point.

[–] Washburn@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They tried, using a proxy force of Cuban exiles.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, but they didn't full out invade, like Russia is doing. They definitely considered it, though lol. And it would've sucked for the people of Cuba if they did, just like it did for Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, or the populace of every other country that's ever been attacked.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They didn't full-out invade

Correct, they were repelled from the beaches by Socialists

I mean the US didn't. US-backed Cuban exiles did. There's a big difference. If US had attacked with it's full might, you guys would've been saying Cuba should surrender as much as Ukraine should right now, because there is no way they would have won. They would've been a smear of an island, probably closer to Haiti. They goodness Kennedy didn't listen to his warhawk generals on this point at least.

[–] Washburn@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Putting American boots on the ground is not the only way that the United States brings death and destruction to a region to further (or protect, as some Amercan politicians call it) American, and more broadly western, hegemony (or American interests, as craven ghouls call it). The use of proxy forces like in Afghanistan during the 80s, coups like those carried out in Chile in 73 and, well really most of South America in the latter 20th century, sanctions against countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK (which are explicitly put in place to make life worse for the people living there and produce people who would be willing to commit violent acts to overthrow the local government not adequately subordinate to the United States), facilitating the mass murder of people opposed to the pro-america regime or too supportive of communism like in Indonesia and South Korea several times, all bring massive loss of life and terrible suffering. The crimes against humanity carried out by the United States and on their behalf are so terrible and widespread that it is difficult to name a country that has not had blood spilled to advance American hegemony in it. Like Cuba.

At that though, the United States is no stranger to directly deploying troops to crush opposition to American hegemony. Like in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan again, and the RSFSR immediately after the revolution. War is terrible, but it is not out of the question to enforce American hegemony.

In Ukraine, the United States is not interested in preserving democracy or the self determination of the Ukranian people. It never has been in any of the countries or among any of the organizations that receive its support. The United States ultimately wants to have control over the Russian economy to use as a source of cheap labor and resources. That was the USSR and later Russia were denied, several times, entry into NATO, an ostensibly defensive alliance for the region that Russia is in, and the purpose of the rapid privatization of post-soviet economies after '91. Ukraine is caught in the terrible position of being used to advance the United States' goal in the region. Support for Ukraine will be dropped when the United States government believes that it is no longer useful or viable to support them against Russia, after who knows how many people are dead and permanently injured, and how many more whose entire lives have been destroyed.

Russia has fought through proxy forces and propaganda a ton as well. They were doing the same thing in Ukraine in Crimea and the Donbas regions and it's partially what led to this whole mess. Yes, America bad I would love for them to leave all those other countries alone. But that doesn't mean no one else can do evil in the world. Blame the people causing the dead and permanently injured, bombing out whole cities with civilians, not the ones giving Ukraine a chance to defend against it. The difference is the US was the aggressor in those other scenarios while in this one they are just helping out the defender. Yes it's to help their own interests, but the Ukrainians don't care, they just want someone to help them defend their land and home and families.

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

Oh! Well then we see eye-to-eye in that case. I think Western support to Ukraine should be limited to accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid, not weapons. I think Ukraine should be open to ceding territory in negotiations in order to end the war and prevent further loss of life. There's always another way besides war and violence. I'm all about peace, glad we're in agreement.