Considering there is absolutely no scholarly consensus on Xinjiang (my very own former genocide studies teacher, Dr Jens Meierhenrich, does not consider it genocide, for example. He is not a 'tankie', he is an extremely well-regarded political scientist who has taught at the best universities in the world) being a genocide it is pretty silly to support defederating because of it. Adrian Zenz is not a valid researcher as he's done no fieldwork, doesn't speak any local language, is a Christofascist fundamentalist (look up some of the stuff he's written about Jews), and his methodology + analysis is extremely poor. I've read through all his papers to see what the big deal was and I found it was completely unscientific and was just based on some very lousy correlations. The UN investigation simply did not find proof of genocide and did not claim to. It said there is evidence of human rights abuses which is something most will agree with.

I have no doubt there is genuine persecution + forced cultural assimilation against the Ughyur-I have a friend whose wife is an Ughyur who fled the region because of it-but there is simply not evidence of genocide.

No, I do not agree w/ most Hexbears on China because I do not believe it is democratic, but that doesn't mean China's political system is beyond discussion, does it?

People being rude and mean is not good and I do not suppor them. Hopefully Hexbear admins will ban them or whatever.

I think this does not constitute a valid reason for deferation whatsoever. It just feels like people are not open to seeing other opinions that they're not used to.

If he manages to wiggle out of this one I will lose it I swear haha.

The Taliban were willing (after a bit of threatening and cajoling) to hand Osama bin Laden over to a third party for him to go to trial. There was no need to invade based on the justification as the Taliban were genuinely afraid of the invasion and were willing to co-operate, just as they have been now. In the end, the invasion did nothing anyway and Al Qaeda's peak came AFTER the Taliban was toppled. There was never any chance of a cohesive post-Taliban government emerging from the Northern Alliance. By this point the US had decided on war and the whole MIC machinery was rolling, so it was too late to turn back (as US leaders thought, with their reliance on a captured media and lobbying from the MIC creating strategic liabilities within the US state).

The invasion was not necessary for US security aims and certainly could never have bettered Afghanistan, though.

I don't know why you are shocked and horrified when people engage with something on their own front page?

That's how federation works, is it not?

It's not brigading, it's literally right there at the top of the front page, so of course people will comment on it.

You say "NATO brought this on themselves" like they weren't joyous at the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine but I think this isn't true. The west has worked closely to recreate the Ukrainian Army from the ground up since 2014 (when it was useless) because they knew this was a possibility. This war-launched idiotically by Putin-has benefitted the west alone. Not Russia, and obviously not Ukraine.

-Ukraine is now irrevocably tied to the west and will be for the foreseeable future. Before this, western intelligence agencies were worried Zelensky was too pro-Russian. Not anymore.

-Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian in their mother tongue are now anti-Russian for the most part.

-Lots of juicy money for western MICs.

-The bulk of the Russian Army is tied down in Ukraine and so cannot be used elsewhere-massive limiting of Russia's strategic manoeuvrability.

-Russian economy damaged (not as much as they thought it would, but it's still damaged) and large-scale brain drain of well-educated Russians who oppose the war who have now fled to Georgia and will seek to move to the west most likely. Also Russians living in the west who are more likely to be liberal will be much less likely to come home.

-Strong consolidation and reification of Ukrainian national identity, meaning far less likely for Ukraine to see Russia as a 'kin state/brotherly nation' akin to Azerbaijan/Turkey.

-Exposes and emphasises the fragmentation and factionalism within the Russian state and security apparatus, (see: Wagner).

-Kills lots of Russians whose families may eventually turn against the state once this war drags on and nothing good comes from it.

What I mean to say is that NATO isn't suffering at all-at least, the Americans and Brits aren't. They're overjoyed! You can't "bring something on yourself" forlornly if you're openly working for it, then it's just a success! I mean I don't think they necessarily worked only for the invasion but basically just various means to bring Ukraine into the western fold, of which this was just one (probably not the ideal) option of many.

It was not a 'rational' or sensible reaction to NATO encroachment. I mean realistically with nuclear weapons the idea that a land invasion of Russia could happen is ludicrous, but even removing that factor there were countless other mechanisms at Putin's disposal to achieve his strategic aims. This invasion was a terrible choice and it only happened because (A) the Russian leadership is full of yes-men who are unable to criticise Putin, (B) because the Russian leadership has become increasingly isolated from the realities on the ground in the last few years and so VASTLY misunderstood how the war would go. They thought it would be like Georgia (though the Georgia War was a mess from a Russian perspective they won anyway because of the vastly unbalanced correlation of forces).

Yes, this is a sensible and thoughtless war, but I think expecting Ukrainians to just give up against an aggressor is fruitless. They will not do it as long as they believe they can win (see Zartman's concept of a mutually hurting stalemate), which both sides currently believe they can. Plus if it's a frozen conflict and more or less even, why would Ukraine 'surrender'? Yes, I think the eventual only possible end to this war will be a surrender of some territory (more likely is simply a frozen conflict), but I don't believe it is politically viable atm and so it is pointless to support it. If Zelensky agreed to surrender territory he'd risk being overthrown and probably killed by the far-right and ultra-nationalist sections of the army/state. The morally best situation would be a return to the status quo ante bellum and a referendum in the east and in Crimea monitored by international IGO/NGO bodies not tied to any particular state, but that wont happen.

The balance of forces is even enough that one side admitting defeat is implausible until the mutual damage from the war is much higher and both sides come to realise it is unwinnable (this is a subjective understanding even if there are objective measures of 'mutually hurting stalemate'.

edit: formatting

I vehemently disagree with Hexbear's support of the modern CPC but I don't think that makes them bots or indoctrinated or whatever, they just have a different viewpoint on the matter and it doesn't take much prodding to get past the shitposting and to get a fairly detailed/nuanced understanding of why from a lot of users on the site. Same with their thoughts about Russia and Ukraine and such. Again, I disagree w/ the majority of people on Hexbear on this issue, but you wont get attacked if you engage in good faith (at least, I don't) and people are more than willing to explain themselves.

I fundamentally disagree w/ the notion that there is any significant amount of actual "Kremlin bots" or "CPC bots"-I mean this community has been its own isolated thing, a dwindling relic of an old Subreddit, for 3 years before federation happened, what'd be the strategic value anyhow? They all show their humanness if you give them the time and the good faith, so to speak.

This is on the front page of chapo.chat/Hexbear.net. Isn't the whole deal w/ federation that the communities merge their posts and their commenters? I apologise if I am misunderstanding. Personally I just comment on whatever things I think are worth commenting on regardless of what community it's on as I think my comments never violate any particular rules anyhow. It's not brigading it's just people wanting to comment on what's in front of them and directly referring to them, IMO. I understand how it would feel that way when it has come so suddenly, though. It's just what happens when an old and active group suddenly joins a bunch of smaller and/or less active ones (or, at least, larger to a small enough extent that the new commenters are still noticeable).

I am a socialist and it is nice to be among socialists, put simply. I disagree with plenty of them on many issues but honestly I have not found people rude or mean to me-indeed, even less so than on liberal forums e.g., reddit. Plus there is an energetic solidarity and support for marginalised ppl (I am disabled + poor + mentally ill) that you do not get in most communities because I feel they understand more so the structural roots behind these marginalisations (since they are socialists!).

Also I was on hexbear since the start (the migration from /r/cth to chapo.chat) and I don't really know what Lemmy is lol.

I mean I do agree with you (as a genocide studies scholar in training, God willing!), but I think your view of the US as just a clumsy, misguided oaf doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is not accurate. It was never the case that the US tried to build a democratic government and failed-from the very start the US instilled Bremer (that idiot) as a dictator; he openly restricted freedom of the press, freedom of speech and association, and had people critical of the CPA arrested. Then afterwards the US tried to interfere in the elections to support Allawi but failed miserably. The CIA and the US embassy has always had a huge role in the picking of Iraqi Prime Ministers and other ministers and has never stopped quashing Iraqi self-determination and democratic will. Just look at what they supported Maliki through!

Yes, but that is not a valid reason to justify the war because an autonomous Kurdish zone had already been set up after the Anfal in 1992. The only way Iraqi troops got in there is when the KDP invited them in during the Kurdish Civil War from 1994-7. Then once that was mediated and the KRG was split into two the Iraqi Army was no longer allowed in. The only real change 2003 brought was the legalising and formal institutionalisation of the KRG such that foreign capital was more willing to invest in it (encouraged, in fact, as the US tried to rebuild Iraq to stabilise things) and it had a big shiny "legal" sticker on it. The realities on the ground didn't change though, especially as the constitutional articles surrounding referendums on Kirkuk and other disputed areas never came to fruition.

So by 2003 the Kurdish Question in Iraq had not been solved, but it had certainly been pacified in intensity, because a de facto independent KRG already existed!

I get what you're saying, though. Yes, Saddam was an abhorrent and awful leader who was a genocidaire. However, the war was still an illegal catastrophe based on falsehoods that made things drastically worse for the Iraqi people. It is unjustifiable even when you take Saddam's terrible-ness into account.

edit: sorry this is really long.

I think it's clear that NATO support for Ukraine is not altruistic (it is simply not how international politics functions) but the Ukrainian people as such certainly do, in my eyes, have an ethical right to self-defence. If I were Ukrainian, I would want NATO weapons because they give me a better chance of fighting off the invader. After all, it's not like the 2022 invasion was the first bit of tension between Ukraine and Russia post-independence, it makes sense to try and form a counterbalancing alliance with the 'far' imperial power to counter the 'close' one, it's a common thing to do. e.g., Mali allying with Russia to counter French influence, Armenia allying with Russia to counter Turkish-Azeri aggression, and so on and so forth.

I think what I find disagreeble about peoples' attitudes on here is their attitude towards the Ukrainian people's struggle. Yes, ok, I also hate the far-right elements in the Ukrainian military and don't care at all that they got smashed in Mariupol, but I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians (there is clear evidence that outside of Crimea even Russian-speaking Ukrainians almost entirely oppose the invasion). Likewise

Yes, NATO does not care about Ukrainians, but an invasion was not the 'logical' response from Russia, and as per existing evidence was based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground in Ukraine from the Russian leadership which has become increasingly isolated and personalist (around Putin) in the past two decades but especially since COVID. There were a vast number of less escalatory and mutually destructive potential paths for the Russian leadership to have taken. After all, this war has gone terribly for Russia compared to their initial aims. Putin claimed (wrongly) that Ukrainian national identity was a Bolshevik creation with no real support, yet now a fervent Ukrainian national identity exists now more than ever before in both the east and west of the country. Putin thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would rally to his side, yet he has pushed them into the arms of the Ukrainian state more than ever before. Putin was afraid of Ukraine becoming aligned with NATO, yet now he has pushed them into the arms of the west completely and permanently. The invasion has killed tens of thousands of young Russian men, has caused considerable capital flight, large-scale brain drain, and empowered Prigozhin and other mercenary/sub-state militias (including Kadyrovites and such) to the point where a mercenary group was within a few hours of marching on Moscow(!) before deciding it wasn't worth the effort (Prigozhin is still strong enough to be allowed to potter about diplomatic meetings, if you need any indication of the dire state of the Russian state). Putin claims to be conducting de-Nazification yet his policies since 2014 have uniformly strengthened the position of the far-right within Ukrainian state + society.

Plus the conduct of the Russian Army and its affiliated elements has been extremely inhumane. I would not say there is evidence of genocide, no (though the large-scale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their Russification, if true on a systemic scale, would be an act of genocide-I do not think there is enough evidence to say either way yet), but there is evidence of systematic and systemic abuses on a VASTLY larger scale than we have seen from the Ukrainians. It is a catastrophe of Russia's own making.

To get back on topic (sorry), I do not see how you can admonish Ukrainians for supporting any means for their national self-defence. They have every right to resist the invasion and to not want part of their homeland (territory and 'land' is important in all national identities/mythologies), no? There is no contradiction between supporting this right to self-defence and self-determination and hating the Nazi groups which, unfortunately, have an outsized power within the Ukrainian military (but do not completely control the state-Zelensky is Jewish and a Russian-speaker!). Yes, Ukrainian national mythology has its share of far-right and general awful elements to it, but unfortunately that's common in a lot of Eastern Europe and as per studies Nazism and antisemitism do not have more support in Ukraine than in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe. There has been plenty of polling/surveying on these topics in Ukraine. There is more so just a lack of understanding as to what the Banderites actually did in WW2, not real support for their actions/Nazi collaboration. That's bad but not what some are saying on here.

Naturally the account has been suspended lol.