this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
287 points (93.4% liked)
Ukraine
9941 readers
357 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
🇺🇦 Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
🌻🤢No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
💥Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
❗ Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
💳 Defense Aid 💥
💳 Humanitarian Aid ⚕️⛑️
🪖 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fun fact, two people, in opposition to each other, can both be assholes.
And you don’t have to like one to criticize the other.
Like how you can criticize the actions of both the USSR and the USA in the Cold War.
More importantly, you don’t have to defend one ass hole just because you like the other less.
The world ain’t fucking a dialectic.
Do not feed the sea lions.
Oh, ok, so tell me, what's your vision for Syria, exactly? Have Turkey and Israel annex the whole thing? Or maybe create a power vacuum in ISIS's backyard? Practically speaking, one of those two assholes was going to end up in power, and if they didn't, the situation was going to be even worse.
Your argument would be a lot stronger if our side was the one calling for active support of one side. You've got it completely backwards. My alleged "support" for Assad was always just, "I don't think either side is worth supporting, so we should leave them alone." Which is, you know, the proper "null" position when looking at any conflict. But the "null" position of anti-tankies seems to be, "Whatever the news says." So rather than neutrality being the zero point, it's seen as "supporting" the opposing side. So much so that you don't even seem to realize how much your argument is shooting yourself in the foot.
Your side, the side that labels us as "tankies" and "Assadists" and so on and so forth every time we advocate non-interventionism, is the side that "defends one asshole because you like the other less." In virtually every foreign policy debate, it's not between which of two sides should be supported, it's between supporting one side or not supporting either. If you want to convince me to adopt a position of interventionism when both sides are flawed, then you need to argue the exact opposite of what you just said.