Yes, U.S. and NATO were "preaching for deescalation" while shipping millions of dollars worth of weapons to Ukraine. All while deploying "instructors" and supporting a planned Ukronazi attack on Donbass republics. Of course Russia wasnt just gonna watch and let that happen.

Russia also offered diplomatic solutions many times (since December, and in fact since 2014). Those were all rejected, and now it seems that the time for diplomacy is over.

Edit: forgot to add, just a few days ago Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons. That was obviously a red line for Russia.

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ukronazi

What's this neologism? Are you not aware nazis are very well integrated in the State apparatus in many nations? It's not just Ukraine: it's also Russia, France, Germany... So why paint a single nation as nazis when more or less of all the parties involved in the conflict are varying brand of imperialism and racial/cultural supremacy?

supporting a planned Ukronazi attack on Donbass republics

What's the evidence that there was a wide-scale attack planned? If that was true, it could justify bringing military support to Donbass as an incentive for the central government not to attack, but how could it ever justify invading the rest of Ukraine?!

Russia also offered diplomatic solutions many times (since December, and in fact since 2014).

From this article, the demands formulated by Russia amount to saying eastern european countries can't have military alliances except with them (neocolonialism, much?). Interviewed russian foreign ministry says:

This is not about us giving some kind of ultimatum, there is none. The thing is that the seriousness of our warning should not be underestimated

That's not a diplomatic solution, that's extortion/bullying. "Do what i say, or else..." has nothing to do with diplomacy and nothing to do with the political autonomy of specific regions.

just a few days ago Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons. That was obviously a red line for Russia

Iran did pursue to develop nuclear weapon for decades. Has that ever justified a full-scale military invasion from the USA? Oh yes, the USA fascists and hard-liners from the republicans would have loved that. Just like the various fascists, traditionalists and neo-nazis of Russia who love the flag and the military really love the idea of conquering Ukraine and reforming a Great Russia (like historical nazis liked their Great Germany). I did not think i would ever say this in my entire life, but do you realize you're spitting propaganda from actual fascists in the name of fighting against nazism?

[–] guojing@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

To understand what Ukronazi means, look at some pictures of the Azov battalion. Their hero is a Nazi collaborator from the second world war (Bandera). In the near future there will also be more information about the genocide they carried out for the last 8 years.

Plenty of evidence for an attack, from NATO weapon supplies, constant artillery shelling on civilians, to even leaked plans and some failed preliminary attacks.

The problem is that western media doesnt report any of this, and if you believe in Guardian or any similar newspapers, you will remain ignorant of reality. Russia has tried diplomacy for a long time, it was rejected, and now the only language left to speak is the language of violence. No one likes that but it is the reality.

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that western media doesnt report any of this, and if you believe in Guardian or any similar newspapers, you will remain ignorant of reality.

If you were to take a look at the Western media, you would see that all these things are actually being reported there. They tell you about the nazis in Donbass (1 2 3), the civilian casualties (1 2) or weapon supplies (1 2).

Russia has tried diplomacy for a long time, it was rejected, [...]

Forcing your interests on a sovereign country is diplomacy in bad faith at best. Putin is an ethno-nationalistic imperialist and it is beyond my understanding why leftists defend him so much (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, huh?)

[–] gun@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Mao Zedong

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

To understand what Ukronazi means, look at some pictures of the Azov battalion.

Oh i'm fully aware of the Azov battalion and i'm fully aware of nationalist militias parading down the streets for years (source: i know ukrainian political refugees). But do you really think the Russian army is not literally full of neo-nazis too? Just look at the criminalization of antifascism in Russia (many comrades assassinated or in prison) and the abundant footage of actual nazi bands beating up "random" people in the public space... it's nothing new but for some reason you're willing to support an ex-KGB operative (Putin) and his hordes of neo-fascists in the name of fighting against nazis?! What i mean is i don't support the Ukrainian State because i don't support any Nation-State (i'm an anarchist), but i do support anti-colonial struggles, and i cannot ignore the asymmetry of this conflict and the colonial dimension of it (Ukraine is a former colony of Russia). And i cannot ignore that due to a unilateral escalation of conflict, millions of civilians are currently suffering.

there will also be more information about the genocide they carried out for the last 8 years

I know a few people who live in the east of Ukraine (won't say where specifically). Things have been tense and i can't say there hasn't been some forms of political repression on the part of the central ukrainian government, but from what i hear and read (except from russian propaganda) there's nothing that we could even remotely compare to a genocide going on over there. But, even if that were the case, it could justify a so-called "humanitarian" military intervention in affected areas to ensure regional autonomy from the central government, but how does it justify to annex and bomb an entire country?!

Plenty of evidence for an attack, from NATO weapon supplies, constant artillery shelling on civilians

Nation States are trading weapons. What else is new? I mean Russia has also been supplying weapons in this conflict. As much as i despise military activity and weapons trade, i don't see how "A" gives weapons to "B" justifies "C" invading "B". As for shelling on civilians, i'd like a source for that: i'm aware of russia/ukraine cross-fire at the border for years and some civilian facilities on ukraine side being affected, but i'm not aware of a "constant" effort from any side to target "civilians" and i don't think such a thing took place at all.

to even leaked plans and some failed preliminary attacks

Source? And once again, how does that justify invasion? If Ukraine planned to invade Donbass region, the Russian government could have answered Donbass' call for help and sent military protection there. This can never justify an invasion.

Russia has tried diplomacy for a long time, it was rejected

Russia's proposal for "diplomacy" was not a negotiation. It was a list of demands impacting the sovereignty of currently-neutral nations (not aligned with NATO or Russia). I'm personally strongly against both colonial empires, so i'm all in favor of more neutrality, but threatening serious consequences if a third-party nation (which just happens to be your former colony) doesn't comply with your demands is not diplomacy.

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've read it. Some sources in there are interesting, but the material itself is completely disconnected from reality. In the sociopathic game of geopolitics, NATO expansion has certainly destabilized the balance of power and incentivized Russia to assert itself (and its claim on its former colonies). But you cannot compare countries forging military alliances, and a country invading another country... it's a completely different kind of escalation.

If anything, your article confirms that Putin is a colonialist bully just as much as NATO is in other parts of the world. It's just russian propaganda and does not account for mischief and imperialist ambitions on the part of Russia. If you want a more nuanced source, i'd recommend checking out Glenn Greewald's Twitter feed: it does a great job to denounce the hypocrisy of western powers, while at the same time acknowledging that invading a sovereign nation is always wrong, no matter what.

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are okay with NATO invading Russia and surrounding it with Aegis missile system

I'm not OK with either. But NATO did not invade Russia and AFAIK is not planning to. There is zero evidence to believe

Russia protecting Donbas citizens from Ukraine

I have no problems with that. But that's not what's happening: there is a full-scale invasion going on threatening the capital of Ukraine, where Putin's demands go far beyond independence for Donbass.

To you, Zelensky, who has a 25% approval rate and jailed the democratically elected Poroshenko and banning opposition media

What the hell are you talking about? I may be missing some details, but Poroshenko's wikipedia page does not mention incarceration, but mentions losing in the elections to Zelensky. To quote the article:

There was no true consensus (...) why Poroshenko lost (...) [:] opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency (...) He is considered an oligarch due to the scale of his business holdings in the manufacturing, agriculture and financial sectors, his political influence that included several stints at government prior to his presidency, and ownership of an influential mass-media outlet. (...) His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira. In translation from Ukrainian, it is: military, language, faith.

I'm not saying Zelensky is much better, but you seem to be ardent to defend an actual bourgeois fascist whose slogan is "military, language, faith" and inventing conspiracies around him? I mean if you do have reliable sources contradicting this Wikipedia article, please help improve it.

Or is it selective Cold War bias going on?

Yes there's selective cold war propaganda going on. And you're fully subscribed to one side of it. I personally am very critical of both sides of the propaganda, and supportive of the civilians and internationalist socialists/communists/anarchists suffering due to political repression on both sides of the border. As much as you dismiss Greenwald, he's doing a correct journalistic job on this topic: he's presenting the lies from both sides and supporting the victims (the populations). You're just a puppet of the Russian Empire. Which side are you on? Are you on the same side as Putin and NATO and other vampires playing the same game of geopolitics? Or are you on the side of the people who struggle against oppression and aim for self-organization at all levels of society?

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One side… that has 0% representation in current media for SOME reason.

That's definitely not true. You are the proof of this. While many national outlet are spewing NATO propaganda, others are spewing Kremlin propaganda. I'm hoping we can have more balanced information on lemmy.ml, that accounts for psyops on both sides of the conflict.

Quoting should help here, because Putin’s recent speech tells otherwise.

OK let's dissect Putin's speech together:

I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. (...) First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade. (...) Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. (...) in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia

Geopolitical concerns between the two big empires (Russia and NATO), nothing about Ukrainian separatists. Though in this part of the speech, Putin presents separatism (in the Caucasus presumably) as morally wrong and dangerous.

they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature.

Being slightly informed about Putin's fight for cis-hetero-patriarchy, this appears to be anti-LGBT propaganda. Nothing to do with ukrainian separatists.

Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. (...) The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape.

Once again this is about sovereign nations and their choice of military alliances (i.e. not Russia), nothing to do with ukrainian separatists. Special note that Putin explicitly appropriates Ukraine territory ("our historical land") and in the same sentence acknowledges that his colonial stature fuels "anti-Russia" sentiment.

For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty.

This is highly debatable. Russia is a major military power and has weapons capable of destroying half of Europe and Asia. In the "delicate balance of terror", there is no indication that the balance has been broken (despite NATO expansionism, Putin still has one-click "life-or-death" button over much of the world) and Putin is not providing any evidence for Russia to be under risk of military attacks.

For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means.

Saying "i won't destroy you if you don't become friends with my enemy" is not peaceful political means. It's threats.

We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. (...) the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time

Putin talks about a genocide which beyond ordinary (and yes, unfair) State repression does not exist in Ukraine, and never provided any evidence for that. If anything, there is evidence that much of this spectacle was planned in advance (video metadata in official releases). And once again, Putin does not provide any evidence that Russia is in any way threatened.

Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons.

There is exactly zero evidence for that that i could find. On the contrary, Ukraine used to be a major nuclear power in the times of the USSR and agreed to dismantle its entire arsenal in order to acquire relative peace with both Russia and NATO. This sounds a lot like the Bush administration's "weapons of mass-destruction" narrative in Iraq back in the early 2000s.

Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect

As the military repression (some would say civil war) in muslim States (such as Checheny) and in Caucasus has shown, Russia has been treating separatists and ordinary citizens way worse than the Ukrainian has ever treated the people of Donetsk (at least from what we know publicly so far).

To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation. (...) It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.

So they don't plan to occupy the country, yet they are bombing the capital and intend to impose ("not by force" ?!) their laws and judicial systems, as well as fully demilitarize a sovereign nation. Is that not a textbook example of a colonialist invasion?

You look to be on the side of Ukraine, that wants to prevent the oppressed people of DPR and LPR to have independence

I'm on the side of the people, against Nation States and borders. I recognize the autonomy of local community and am ready to support people struggling for their independence. I'm not on the side of Ukraine and i'm not on the side of Russia, and i'm certainly not on the side of NATO as i'm anti-France, but i also have to be against Russia on this because they're the ones who "fired" and keeps on shooting.

Your first question mixing Putin and NATO on the same side is a fallacy

On the contrary, it's the only reasonable analysis. Putin and NATO are two sides of the same dice of colonialist garbage. I stand with the people not with governments, as is a foundational principle of socialism (i strongly recommend some historical socialist/anarchist anti-war propaganda). Overall, i strongly recommend that you listen to the demands and cries of comrades on both sides of the border.

[+] TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks like you didn't even read my post. Or if you did, you have some serious self-criticism to do.

You claim to be antifascist (or rather antinazi but maybe you make a difference here?!) yet you support russian fascism. You claim the ukrainian army is full of nazis (this is true) but carefully ignore that the russian army is also full of nazis. I don't support (and on the contrary condone) NATO imperialism but you obviously can't read that since in your narrow worldview someone who criticizes the russian empire necessarily has to vow allegiance to their sworn NATO enemies.

Contrary to you, i do not imply that opposing NATO means supporting Putin. On the contrary, i outlined on many occasions that anti-imperialist thinkers/fighters who oppose NATO are also opposing Putin's imperialism on Ukraine.

Yes "the people" is one side you can choose. And by "the people" i certainly don't mean Ukraine as a Nation-State or only the ukrainian people (which are not even a coherent ideological block as we pointed out in regards to separatism). I do mean the common people across all borders, who will be (and are already) the ones suffering every time there is war. War only profits the war industry and the fascist State apparatus, whether the invasion is conducted by NATO or by Russia.

Whoever starts the war/invasion, the peoples of both Ukraine and Russia will suffer heavy losses. You would know that if you were involved in actual anti-imperialist struggles and support to political refugees. The only war that's ever justifiable is war against "your" nation state, for freedom and equality. Any war in the name of a State against another always plays against the interests of the people, or as the song goes (in french): "Because was is a massacre of people who don't know one another, for the profit of people who always know each other yet do not massacre each other".

[–] a_Ha@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

J'aimerais bien l'original en français de la chanson. Depuis quelques jours je repense à "Adieu Angélina" de Nana Mouskouri ( traduit d'un texte de Bob Dylan ) & "Quand les hommes vivront d'amour"

[–] ArchimedesTesseract@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Putin's actions, not words, have convinced me. No one has invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine. You cannot talk fast enough to change the facts.