An easy guide to anti-war positions in the Ukrainian War!

Nah, Hexbear is cheering the genocide on. They're mask-off at this point.

HEY, don't forget lemmygrad!

I'm pretty sure they would say that ukraine shouldn't exsist anyway because the US propaganda is taking over them or whatever.

I don't understand, are the people on these servers kremlin bots or are they really that stupid?

Hexbear cheers for both Russia and Hamas

lemee speedrunning defederation

I found this offensive. Not all people on my instance think what you think.

lemm.ee have "no bigotry" rule, but why offend other instances is okay?

Nope. It will only sttengthen Putin.

As long as they're genuine and civil about their opinions, I encourage a space for that discussion. If it's disingenuous trolling or crude propaganda then it becomes a problem.

😭🤧 Tankies get hankies. 😭🤧

Cancelling on Lemmy now? Don't make it Twitter pls.

Did he say that before or after causing the Bengal famine of 1943?

France went down surrendering yet rose again - both during WWII.

Don’t bring these dumb analogies to this conflict. While Israel definitely acts towards Palestine the way Russia acts towards its former colonies, Hamas itself acts like Russian backed “people’s republic”.

This will lead to radicalization of Israel’s politics. The date was chosen to have the maximum chance of shutting down any positive resolution around Palestine.

In other words, this is not an attempt to free Palestine, it’s an attempt to set the world on fire.

You already claimed in a previous thread on the same subject that Euromaidan was a CIA coup, so I don't know why you think playing the Very Concerned Netizen now will be believable.

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.

Guys we found the indoctrinated Russian, send him some help

When your enemy labels you a Nazi to rationalize invasion, it helps refute the claim.

What do you expect when Iran is making the drones that are raining down on his country?

I mean, "Uneasy truce is shattered (again) by civilian deaths" isn't exactly celebratory material. There are only a handful of countries cheering this on, regardless of position on the Palestine issue, and they're not the kind of company one wishes to be caught with on the international stage.

It's an old Israeli saying. Since that's daily life living there.

... Ukraine decided an independent Ukraine had to exist. They voted for independence in 1991, with over 90% in favor. Ukrainian relations with Russia soured after Russia decided to invade and annex part of Ukraine that they had formerly promised to respect the sovereignity of. Russia is an oligarchy with no controls on the behavior of its leader, who has openly signaled that he believes that Ukrainians are just a kind of inferior Russian who need to be taught their place. The West offered the Ukrainian president refuge. The Ukrainian president refused and chose to stay in his country. Hundreds of men and women sacrificed themselves in the opening days of the invasion to buy their country time to resist. Millions have volunteered.

What deal, exactly, do you expect to be made in that situation? In what way was any of that the West's decision?

Take a step back, and rethink your approach to this. Ukrainians are capable of making their own decisions.

One of the key differences to other instances is that Ukrainian culture was not really tolerated in the USSR, and definitely not in the imperialistic cute of Russia today. Rather, Russia learned from the demise of the USSR that it's better to remove cultural and societal differences within its nation. And it's going the same route as other empires have in the past and are doing today. Enforcing the use of its language, forcibly educating the youth in Russian culture and schools, often by literally abducting them from their Ukrainian homes and relocating them to Russia into Russian families. Kidnapping a people's children is literally one of the five acts that make a genocide, according to the UN genocide convention from 1948.

There are many examples to show that putting peace above all else is dangerous. Using your example, the Welsh were violently suppressed and exploited for centuries by the English, following a similar scheme. The Welsh language was forbidden to teach, Welsh traditions were replaced by English, and power of autonomy was transferred to the English. Nowadays less than 20% of the Welsh can speak their language, and that is after the "resurgence" and it being allowed to be taught again.

Other examples are Native Americans, the Armenian genocide, Czech Sudetenland, Poland, oh, and remember what China is doing in Xinjiang? All of them posed no or little violent resistance in exchange for promises of peace and cultural autonomy. It rarely takes more than a few months before contracts with powerless people are broken.

Nations are just figments of imagination, but are an expression of communal will of a number of people. Modern ( as in last two centuries) concepts of human rights revolve around the freedom of people to choose how to live their lives. We usually consider it admirable if people are allowed to freely live their chosen cultures and tradition. We also consider it proper that people are allowed to choose what kind of society they want to live in/migrate to. We also grant asylum to those forcibly prevented from living their way of life and being persecuted in their home nation.

Nations are a construct allowing specific sets of societal rules to be applied to a large populace. An internationally recognized nation is also considered integrally protected, even if one nation might not agree with the internal societal rules of another country. These global base rules are very bare bones, but they are one of the big reasons we all get to live in the era dubbed "long peace". Yes, there's still wars and ugly conflicts, but at least there has been no major total war involving superpowers. Even the Ukraine war is luckily still limited in scope. Were Russia to unleash their full military might, it quickly would devolve into a humanitarian disaster not seen since the world war.

Why does the arbitrary nature of countries favor the invader though? What about the argument that Russia is an arbitrary country that doesn't need to violently expand into neighbouring countries?

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.

Tell us you're a troll without saying you are one. The Western world isn't the arbiter of global politics. Ukraine voted for independence in 1990 and the rest of the world recognised them as an independent country that could exercise their own domestic and foreign policy. Whether they align with the West is none of other's concern. Denying a country of such right is essentially enabling Russia's genocidal intent on Ukraine.

I'm going to assume that you're arguing in good faith and aren't just a troll.

I myself am very anti-war, but I tend to take a more practical standpoint, because in order to avoid war, both sides must work at peace, not just one.

There's a few problems with your line of thinking.

For one, you suggest that Russia formally agreeing to tolerate Ukrainian culture would be enough, but suposing Ukraine did back down on that condition, how could they possibly trust Russia to stick to their word once any bargaining power they had is gone, especially since Russia has previously recognised Ukraine as a sovereign nation and had no problem ignoring their own word on that.

That brings me to problem two, or modern day notion of nations is relatively recent, but it does seem to work. Before the world wars, there was always borders changing and this was seen as normal. But since at least world war II this has changed, nowadays nations choose to recognise other nations right to exist with a given set of borders, this is a fragile system and if we simply allow countries to arbitrarily go against it without any repercussions, then why would any other country abide by it?

Also if Russia and Ukraine could agree to have Ukraine become part of Russia, I, as someone from neither country, would have nothing particularly against it, as long as it was entirely peaceful diplomacy, Russia removed that option the moment they started gathering troops near the border, because at minimum, that's a threat.

I am no expert on the history involved here by any means, so if I have made any mistake, feel free to correct me, I'm simply thinking through the logic.

Do you want to go back to constant wars?

Recognizing countries has been a great way to stop invasions. The borders we drew might not have been perfect, but the peace generated is worthwhile

You're a dumb fucking cunt.

Edit: I'd like to add that I hope you die today and that your pets eat your face and die from all the poison in your body, you shit eating God damn worm.