• aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    … because this time the US is backing Ukraine against the aggressor, whereas in 2004 it was the aggressor?

    • blight [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Hmm I wonder if anything interesting happened in Ukraine in for example 2014. Nothing in particular comes to mind.

    • emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      so when Victoria Nuland picked Ukraine’s new government after instigating a coup and they killed ~16,000 civilians people in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 those were friendly, non-aggressive artillery shells?

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        So you’re saying that Russia didn’t invade Ukraine first, before the separatist-controlled areas were shelled?

          • aleph@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Oh, so you’re saying that Russia illegally annexing Crimea in 2014 wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine?

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              You can always tell who the most ignorant libs are when they bring up Crimea lmao

              Crimea is not Ukrainian, it has always been a distinct cultural ethnic region and 97% of Crimeans voting for independence from Kiev should give you pause before you breathlessly insist they should remain beholden to a bunch of nazi banderites

              • aleph@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                Crimeans wanting independence means they wanted to become part of the Russian empire again?

                • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  the Russian federation is a reactionary bourgeois state that is a hollowed out shell of its former USSR self, but I dislike the hyperbole that it is “the Russian Empire”. Russia Today is neither the Russian empire, nor the Soviet Union. If anything it is closer politically to what it would have been if the February revolution had continued and the October revolution never happened: A bourgeois state.

    • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Russia is the aggressor in this war, and it’s bad that they invaded.

      Russia invaded Ukraine in response to continued US policy of bringing countries near Russia’s borders into NATO, a military treaty organization that Russia had tried to join but was barred from. Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.

      The Ukrainians are the victims in a proxy war between two much larger powers. For the average Ukrainian, sooner the war is over, the better. Somehow repelling the invasion would be ideal, but every day of fighting destroys lives and homes.

      US policy in response to the invasion is to send military hardware to Ukraine, enriching its arms manufacturers and prolonging the conflict. They make the Ukrainian government pay for this by forcing the privatization of their government assets at bargain prices (note how this website exists and is fully translated to English). The actual fighting is still done by Ukrainians, who die for this.

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Not acting would mean that Russia becomes increasingly encircled by military bases of a hostile superpower.

        It’s a semantic point, but I think it’s a stretch to call Russia the aggressor. Especially so if you remember the intensified bombings of civilian areas in eastern Ukraine, which really appeared like an attempt to provoke a Russian intervention.