Even if that were true (and I don't think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You don't have to take Putin's word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. 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. He has got the exact opposite.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire?

That's not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war

However, if you don't trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled "Extending Russia" that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition?

The war could've been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could've been avoided entirely if the west didn't insist on NATO expansion and didn't overthrow the government in Ukraine.

[–] mormund@feddit.org -5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn't say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I'll pretend with you it is true.

Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I'm sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I've got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's amazing how people just keep regurgitating these talking points. It's just so incredibly shallow and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the situation. There is no comparison with WW2 here. In fact, the best comparison to make would be Yugoslavia where NATO recognized separatist regions as being independent, and then had them invite NATO to invade and destroy Yugoslavia. That's the actual model that Russia is using in Ukraine.

[–] mormund@feddit.org -4 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

So you are saying that Russia recognized separatist regions in Ukraine as a front to ultimately destroy Ukraine? And it is ok because NATO does the same?

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

pungent desperation in this reply

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that recognizing the separatists regions and then accepting their request for help was the common element. It's quite clear that Russia was not interested in destroying Ukraine as illustrated by the fact that Russia tried to make Minsk agreements for for whole eight years. I don't know why you feel the need to continue making blatantly dishonest statements here. You're not fooling anybody.

[–] mormund@feddit.org -4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, well it was surprising you mention that other part in your comparison so vividly. And I'm not sure where I stated anything at all, aside from the fallacy of what-about-ism in regards to NATO and Russia. The rest you interpreted yourself.

What I don't understand is why "leftists" like you feel the need to vocally support an oligarch and dictator, instead of being able to say that the war in Ukraine is a pointless waste of human lives for which Putin is directly responsible as the aggressor.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 17 hours ago

Talking about whataboutism is just a way to paper over hypocrisy. It's not a real argument. Then you proceeded to make it crystal clear that you are indeed a hypocrite.

What I don’t understand is why “leftists” like you feel the need to vocally support an oligarch and dictator, instead of being able to say that the war in Ukraine is a pointless waste of human lives for which Putin is directly responsible as the aggressor.

Nice straw man there buddy, cause nowhere did I vocally support anything. What you're being told is that what Russia is doing is no different from what the west has been doing, and that the west is just as responsible for starting and continuing this conflict. Apparently that's just too hard a concept for you to comprehend.

The most incredible part is that multiple people in this very thread tried to explain the situation to you, and you just ignore the facts and continue regurgitating the talking points you've memorized. The sheer anti-intellectualism on display is stunning.