this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
335 points (98.3% liked)

World News

32084 readers
1512 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skua@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I see this Stoltenberg quote confidently thrown out so often in defence of Russia's invasion. Do you think Russia has some kind of actual right to invade countries if NATO doesn't do what it says? Would you be defending Germany if it sent a similar letter to the CSTO and then invaded Serbia?

[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of course it does. It's a superpower with a right to protect its citizens from the threats of the world's most aggressive military alliance, making threats to install nukes etc. Do you think the US would behave differently?

[–] Skua@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hot take but if the USA invaded Mexico because the CSTO refused to stop accepting members then I would, in fact, think that that was bad actually

[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But that's not a singular scenario. If you want an analogy it would be Russia or China installing nukes on the US-Mexico border and constantly talking shit.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's the direct comparison to the scenario Russia created when it sent that letter. It's literally just swapping:

  • The CSTO for NATO
  • America for Russia, as the aggressor with a big military
  • Mexico for Ukraine, as the smaller neighbour that's not even in the alliance in question

But let's not pretend it would be any more just for America to kill hundreds of thousands of Mexicans over nukes stored there. The way America treated Cuba around the time of the missile crisis was basically this, and I would hope that we can agree America was not justified in that. As it is you're just defending warmongering behaviour because it's against a side that you don't like.

[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But let’s not pretend it would be any more just for America

Nobody is saying it's justified. It's predictable, expected and a normal way for a superpower to behave. You don't climb into the lion cage and whine about justice when you're mauled. Russia, the USA, whichever is going to act in its interests and the interests of its security. The unjust part is on the aggressor, in this case the USA in Ukraine funding and arming Nazi extremists to threaten Russia for "its interests in the region" and killing hundreds of thousands because it's "cheap" and a "good deal" for them.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

No world power will tolerate an aggressive military alliance on its borders. If you don't understand this basic fact, then what else is there to say to you. NATO has been invading and destroyed countries for decades since USSR fell. The principle of invading countries because might makes right is already established by NATO.

It's pretty funny that you bring up Serbia, given that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is directly modelled on what NATO did to Yugoslavia. NATO recognized independence of the separatist regions and then had them invite NATO to assist. This is precisely the formula Russia followed with DPR and LPR. Russia is just following the rules based world order here buddy.

[–] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

To back your point, Russia's concern over Ukraine is the same as India showing concern over Pakistan's government. Yahya Khan came to power in Pakistan after a coup, backed by western powers to counter the influence of Soviet Union. Yahya Khan is known as the "butcher of Bengal". Killed about three million people in East Bengal (Pakistan then, Bangladesh now) - men, mostly of Hindu faith were culled, while women were raped. This led to a growing refugee crisis in West Bengal (India). The US threatened to nuke India. Guess whose intervention stopped this genocide? The Soviet Union pressurized the US to back off, because of which India was able to take part in the Bengali revolution to liberate Bangladesh. This event is also how the slur "p*ki" came into existence - targeting brown people, especially Pakistani.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

Also worth noting that Pakistan and India were created by the British when they got kicked out as effectively a scorched earth policy. The British used this same strategy in the Middle East in order to create unstable political entities that would be at each others throats.

[–] Skua@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If it's a free for all, Germany and its friends can do what they want and send Ukraine as many weapons as they like, can't they? Why have you got a problem with it? Under your logic they're just doing what world powers do

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Where did I say I had a problem with anything? The west chose to play a stupid game, and it's very clearly turning into a debacle. Evidently you still don't understand what's happening though.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh I'm sorry, I must have mistaken your comment backing up the accusation of modern Germany doing Nazi stuff to be criticism of Germany's actions.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Modern Germany is literally backing a genocide in Gaza right now, so yeah we can definitely criticize modern Germany for doing nazi stuff. Meanwhile, anybody who thinks that the same country that's aiding and abetting a literal genocide is also helping people of Ukraine really needs to get their head checked.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay so you do have a problem with it. So what the fuck was with the, "Where did I say I had a problem with anything?"

Meanwhile, anybody who thinks that the same country that’s aiding and abetting a literal genocide is also helping people of Ukraine really needs to get their head checked.

"Britain supplying the Soviet Union with thousands of aircraft and tanks to fight the Nazis during WW2 was bad because Britain had a colonial empire." No, these things don't affect one another. They can, in fact, be evaluated differently.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You just keep trying to put words in my mouth when I'm explaining basic facts to you. Must be a coping mechanism you've developed.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't say stupid shit if you don't want to be asked about why you said stupid shit. I haven't put a single word in your mouth.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You should really follow your own advice given that you're the only one saying stupid shit here. The reality is that the west is cynically using Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia. Anybody who keeps pretending that the west is helping Ukraine is a deplorable piece of human garbage.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're the one posting stupid shit again and again. Russia shouldn't have invaded, period. No country in the EU longed for war with Russia. On the opposite Russian governments have a very long history of being absolutely paranoid, thus justyfing annexation and assimilation of countless territories and peoples for the sake of "feeling secure". It's absolutely ridiculous to fall for this shitty narrative that fits so well with the rest of dumb Russian propaganda.

Likewise there is no genocide in Gaza. If you're in support of a terrorist group using hospitals, kindergartens, mosques, etc. to hide, keep hostages and store explosives, I'm really wondering how wicked one can be. Maybe you're an antisemite?