this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
901 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lurklurk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

japan is a sovereign nation too. one that doesn’t get to decide whether a foreign power from across the pacific ocean gets to park military bases in their land.

Japan did try to invade quite a lot of places and then lose the ensuing war to end up there though. Ukraine didn't really do that

russia was content with Ukraine being loosely coupled. They were not OK with Ukraine totally leaving the Russian sphere and joining the west. this is what triggered the invasion of Crimea and the little green men from the east.

That rethoric is applicable to almost any russian neighbour. Which countries would you be fine with russia invading if they win in Ukraine? Finland again? The baltics again? Poland again?

Also Russia's invasion isn't something "triggered" any more than an abused spouse "triggers" the violence against them. Russia could have followed international law and not invaded, and so far it seems it would even have been better for them. Blaming Ukraine for getting invaded is pretty russian propaganda in my eyes.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Which countries would you be fine with russia invading if they win in Ukraine

why do you assume i am fine with Russia invading anywhere?

I'm making a point about the dynamics of the war.

How about this-

Do you think it's a coincidence the invasion happened less than 4 days after the new government was appointed (unconstitutionally)? Why do you think that new government immediately started cooperating with the CIA? It's because they knew Russia was about to invade them. Because they understood their position.

this type of autonomic response you have to somebody simply dispassionately discussing the material conditions which caused this war is quite interesting. reminds me of the anti-israel / anti-semitic tick

[–] lurklurk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

why do you assume i am fine with Russia invading anywhere?

Well you seem fine with russia invading ukraine, and your reasons would cover other european states that also were russia aligned at some point but have since turned west, so it's natural to assume you're consistent.

Do you think it’s a coincidence the invasion happened less than 4 days after the new government was appointed (unconstitutionally)? Why do you think that new government immediately started cooperating with the CIA? It’s because they knew Russia was about to invade them. Because they understood their position.

So a bit like an abused spouse making plans to escape their abuser? They made plans to support their escape so clearly they deserved what was coming?

Most of europe is making plans right now and probably cooperating with the CIA to prepare for russia's next move. I guess we deserve whatever Putin throws at us as we "understand our position"?

When you defend the russian invasion of ukraine with russian talking points, people are going to assume you've fallen for russian propaganda. Actually, that's the generous interpretation as falling for propaganda can happen to good people.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

we are discussing the material conditions that led up to the war. we have agreed together here that

a) the ukrainian government had a radical change overnight due to a violent protest/revolution/coup

b) the old government was pro-russian, the new government was anti-russian

c) the new ukrainian government realized that Russia was about to invade because of this radical change and therefore they prepared for war by bending the knee to the US

so let's circle back to the statement that started this line of inquiry

"the ukrainian war is in a way a war of independence"

so instead of going off on tangents all over the place, can we circle back to that statement. now that we have agreed on a) b) and c), does the statement in bold seem true or false to you?

let's ignore who has fallen for whatever propaganda and try to agree on a base set of facts and draw some conclusions we can agree on. if you disagree with a) b) or c) please specifically state what part of that statement is false and we can each present evidence and reasoning.

i fully intend to show to you i am speaking in good faith and i assume you are as well

[–] lurklurk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm mostly curious if and why you think Russia had the right to invade.

I don't agree with your framing of a,b & c.

A & B: Ukraine has had an election since 2014 so apparently there's public support for a western friendly government.

C: preparing to defend yourself from invasion doesn't justify invading

So why do you think Russia were right to invade?

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago

ok let's go over piece by piece to try and again reach a base set of facts we can agree on

I’m mostly curious if and why you think Russia had the right to invade.

i don't think Russia had a right to invade. i do recognize, however, that idealistic platitudes doesn't ultimately matter in the dynamics between nation-states. russia believed, for a confluence of factors, that invading was the correct decision and therefore they made that decision.

i'm not making any moral judgements. if it were up to me we'd all be singing Kumbaya, nuclear weapons would all be dismantled, and we'd live in a communist utopia. i don't get to decide though. i only get to be a third party observer, doing the best i can to arrive at the closest version of the truth

what i am doing, along with you, is discussing the material conditions that led to this war and the nature of the dynamic between both ukraine and russia and the ukrainian war relative to recent history

A & B: Ukraine has had an election since 2014 so apparently there’s public support for a western friendly government.

Ok let's once again reiterate what started this inquiry

the ukrainian war is in a way a war of independence

a) the ukrainian government had a radical change overnight due to a violent protest/revolution/coup

the fact that Ukraine had an election since 2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government does not change that there was an abrupt change in government in 2014. these things are not connected

just because people supported the French revolution, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent revolution, correct?

b) the old government was pro-russian, the new government was anti-russian

once again, the fact that the old government (president being Viktor Yanukovych) was pro-Russian does not change whether or not there was an election post-2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government

neither a) nor b) change based on your statement. so please

do you agree or disagree with A) and B)? they are objective statements of fact. easily provable or disprovable. can we agree to a base line reality? if we can, we can move forward

C: preparing to defend yourself from invasion doesn’t justify invading

"the new ukrainian government realized that Russia was about to invade because of this radical change and therefore they prepared for war by bending the knee to the US"

we are not talking about justification. the statement c) states that the new Ukrainian government, post Euromaidan, recognized they were about to be invaded and immediately started cooperating with the US.

again, objective statement of fact. you either agree or don't agree.

if you cannot state "Yes this is true" or "No this is false because xyz" then you are not actually saying anything and I'm going to assume you are not discussing in good faith

i'm making every effort here to be generous to you