1851
(page 2) 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] drathvedro@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

This isn't going to change anyone's mind. The pro-Russia folk believe that Ukraine as a nation never existed in the first place, so they are fine with below option. The top one is just wishful thinking - why would they stop fighting? They stand nothing to gain from this and they'd lose everything they fought so hard to gain.

I'll get down-voted yet again, but I'll keep saying this: If you care about Ukraine - join the war, send in the troops. Otherwise - shut the fuck up. Spamming the flag everywhere does not help. Sending weapons doesn't really turn the tides either. Cheering Ukrainian soldiers into a suicidal counter-offensive - well that's an especially fucked up thing to do.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Yea, I agree that countries should send troops to help Ukraine but I disagree with the idea that sending weapons doesn't help. If Russia conquers Ukraine it will just be another Afganistan or Israel where Ukraine will fight Russian occupation as some terrorist group and Russia will employ what it always does: ethnic cleansing.

Also Moldova is next in line for a Russian invasion so there will also be that in a few years or however long it takes for Russia to recover from this.

[-] drathvedro@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I disagree with the idea that sending weapons doesn’t help

Well, that's why I said "doesn't really turn the tides" instead of "not helping". Of course the weapons are helpful, but they are not a solution. Ukraine is outnumbered 3.5 to 1, outgunned and in much deeper hole, economically. Surely an F-16 is nice, but they won't be able to down 3.5 Russian jets each, and, even if they did, they'd still need like 800 of them. HIMARS surely is painful, but it's not 3.5 times more efficient than BM-30. And so goes to every equipment sent.

Russia will employ what it always does: ethnic cleansing

Oh god no, what source do you even have for that claim? The only case I can think of is Crimean Tatar relocation which was quite a fucked up thing to do, but Stalin's actions are largely condemned in modern Russia. Even *IF * the Russians were to go ethnic cleansing, it would definitely be in Chechnya and Ingushetia first, not in Ukraine. Because, even in the eyes of the most hardline Z folk, Ukraine is not a rabid dog to be put down, it's more like a dipshit younger brother who deserves his ass getting belted.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The weapons have reversed the tide though, Russia's invasion has been ground to a halt and ever reversed quite a bit.

Putin has mentioned several times that he wants to return the glory of the soviet era. Also it absolutely is not condemned but glorified, I live next to Russia, we get their state media here.

As for the ethnic cleansings other than the Tatars and Greeks in Crimea: Koreans in the eastern regions of Russia, Chechens, Ingush, Karapapaks, Karachays, Balkars, Karelians and Meskhetian Turks. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few though, there are too many to remember. Also some of the largest mass graves in recent history were found in the regions of Ukraine where Russia was pushed out.

[-] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago

What gives any arbitrary country a mandate to exist though? We recognize that plenty of other social institutions are transient. Nobody demanded a massive international intervention to continue the existence of the Whig Party or the Studebaker Corporation. Why are countries unique and special? Also, this seems like a very modern thing: nobody is demanding we bring back Tanganyika or unwind German unification.

I get the desire to preserve the Ukranian culture and community. But you don't need a sovereign nation for that: compare the re-establishment of the Welsh language and culture, for example.

Would the population have been better off-- at least in the "not exploded" sense-- by backing down with a quick surrender in exchange for some "we'll formally tolerate your cultural differences" legal concessions? I'm sure at this point, it's impractical to negotiate to that, because there's too much bloodshed and burnt bridges on both sides, but it seemed like it was never even on the table: the Western world decided an independent Ukraine had to exist even if everyone involved knew it was going to be a very painful and expensive endeavour to keep it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This explains this sentiment.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I think for the war to end some kind of terms of peace need to be drafted and ratified by the involved parties.

It now comes down to how much war is required to achieve such a thing.

Anti war positions tend to recognize the meat grinder of conscripts is an unnecessary step and promote minimizing the amount of time it needs to run.

But I am sure there are people expecting or even outright demanding the total capitulation of a nation at war, which is a particularly brutal position to take.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
1851 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5454 readers
3044 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS