It’s similarly black and white (although the scale of genocide that is happening to Palestinians is on a completely different level of course) if one understands history. Ukraine is full of Nazis. Russia is killing them. Is Russia a good country? No, definitely not and they should be condemned for all the bad shit they do. But everyone should be in favor of Nazis getting murked. And then we’ll get folks like “well Ukraine isn’t Nazis” to which I respond “then why do they all have Nazi patches.” And then one would respond “those are historical patches.” To which I would reply “from what history.” Then we always hear “well when they were fighting the communists.” The obvious question is “on whose side?” And that’s where folks get angry because they just walked into proving that Ukraine is historically full of Nazis, and thats why they continue to wear Nazi patches. Ukraine could choose to distance themselves from their Nazi history but they don’t. The only explanation for not distancing yourself from your Nazi history and instead leaning into it is because you’re a Nazi.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I’m not a Nazi so that makes me pretty biased based
Oh, so Russia should just exterminate the entire population and take that entire landmass. You’ve painted the entire country with the same broad brush and they obviously deserve it. The hundreds of thousands of people dying on both sides with surly root out the Nazi scurge and not legitimize them as a defensive force. /s in case it wasn’t mega clear.
You’re correct, there are some Nazis in Ukraine and it’s certainly close to Nato and a possible threat on Russia’s border. It’s complicated. An irridentist invasion and war is not based actually, for everyone involved.
Assuming every Ukrainian is a Nazi, and every Russian isn’t (which is obviously extreme on both ends, but let’s simplify and take a maximalist position favoring you.)
There’s a lot of estimates out there, but taking rough middle estimates, 500k Ukrainian forces have been killed, and 1,250k Russian forces. So you think it is good, logical even, to melt 2.5 non Nazis in favor of killing one? Would you sacrifice your life and a friend or family member to kill one Ukrainian Nazi?
I haven’t made any of those assumptions or said any of those things, so I’m not sure what imaginary person you’re arguing against
You made all kinds of open ended comments about “Nazi’s getting murked” as your basic characterization of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, not measuring it against any limiting principle of civilian casualties or basically anything else. You’re leaving everyone else to do your work for you of quantifying what you mean. If you are denying that the civilian vs nazi death rate is acceptable, that would negate everything you said, but you’re conveniently leaving untouched literally any question that would reality check or sanity check your vague generalities.
The only explanation for not distancing yourself from your Nazi history and instead leaning into it is because you’re a Nazi.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I’m not a Nazi so that makes me pretty biased based
They’re killing Nazis and they’re justified in doing it. Seems like you think it’s worth the cost to you, but I don’t know what you believe. So what is your position here?
Oh, so Russia should just exterminate the entire population and take that entire landmass
Why do you keep pretending that that is what has been happening?
An irridentist invasion and war is not based actually, for everyone involved.
What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers personnel and weapons on that state’s borders, especially after said most prolific invader completes a coup against a neighbouring neutral state?
Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.
Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.
Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries. Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries.
That wouldn’t help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
Your suggestion doesn’t even help in the best-case scenario where the aggressor loses, as the invaded state still has to go through a counter-offensive over all the same areas, except the aggressor now has more resources to fight with.
So, this is not a serious alternative.
Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia, two nuclear armed nations? Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first? (maybe excluding invading Crimea). Why would Ukraine invade exactly?
Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia
NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.
two nuclear armed nations?
So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?
Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first?
This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.
Why would Ukraine NATO invade exactly?
For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.
Who could forget world War 2, when the entire population of Germany was destroyed?
I can’t think of a more fundamental breakdown in critical thinking than responding to concerns about civilian deaths by splitting hairs about whether 100% of the population was destroyed. Nearly identical to how Israel justifies genocide.
It’s similarly black and white (although the scale of genocide that is happening to Palestinians is on a completely different level of course) if one understands history. Ukraine is full of Nazis. Russia is killing them. Is Russia a good country? No, definitely not and they should be condemned for all the bad shit they do. But everyone should be in favor of Nazis getting murked. And then we’ll get folks like “well Ukraine isn’t Nazis” to which I respond “then why do they all have Nazi patches.” And then one would respond “those are historical patches.” To which I would reply “from what history.” Then we always hear “well when they were fighting the communists.” The obvious question is “on whose side?” And that’s where folks get angry because they just walked into proving that Ukraine is historically full of Nazis, and thats why they continue to wear Nazi patches. Ukraine could choose to distance themselves from their Nazi history but they don’t. The only explanation for not distancing yourself from your Nazi history and instead leaning into it is because you’re a Nazi.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I’m not a Nazi so that makes me pretty
biasedbasedOh, so Russia should just exterminate the entire population and take that entire landmass. You’ve painted the entire country with the same broad brush and they obviously deserve it. The hundreds of thousands of people dying on both sides with surly root out the Nazi scurge and not legitimize them as a defensive force. /s in case it wasn’t mega clear.
You’re correct, there are some Nazis in Ukraine and it’s certainly close to Nato and a possible threat on Russia’s border. It’s complicated. An irridentist invasion and war is not based actually, for everyone involved.
Russia has never said they plan on genocide, nor have they said they plan on taking the entirety of Ukraine. So you’re just making things up.
It’s hyperbolic. What are you willing to accept in the name of “killing Nazis”?
What are you willing to accept in the name of defending Nazis?
Assuming every Ukrainian is a Nazi, and every Russian isn’t (which is obviously extreme on both ends, but let’s simplify and take a maximalist position favoring you.)
There’s a lot of estimates out there, but taking rough middle estimates, 500k Ukrainian forces have been killed, and 1,250k Russian forces. So you think it is good, logical even, to melt 2.5 non Nazis in favor of killing one? Would you sacrifice your life and a friend or family member to kill one Ukrainian Nazi?
Lol
My bad, I reading the casualty numbers as if they were killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war
So that’s still about 500k, and not taking into account civilians, injuries, and all the other costs of war on both sides. Point still stands.
I haven’t made any of those assumptions or said any of those things, so I’m not sure what imaginary person you’re arguing against
You made all kinds of open ended comments about “Nazi’s getting murked” as your basic characterization of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, not measuring it against any limiting principle of civilian casualties or basically anything else. You’re leaving everyone else to do your work for you of quantifying what you mean. If you are denying that the civilian vs nazi death rate is acceptable, that would negate everything you said, but you’re conveniently leaving untouched literally any question that would reality check or sanity check your vague generalities.
They’re killing Nazis and they’re justified in doing it. Seems like you think it’s worth the cost to you, but I don’t know what you believe. So what is your position here?
Oh no, someone making a sane point. Better downvote it and run away!
Narrator: They downvoted and ran away
“Uh well okay they actually don’t want what I said they want bUT STILL”
Why do you keep pretending that that is what has been happening?
What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers personnel and weapons on that state’s borders, especially after said most prolific invader completes a coup against a neighbouring neutral state?
So, become the invader? Start the war? That seems to be what you think should happen right?
Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.
Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.
Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don’t invade other countries. Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
That wouldn’t help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
Your suggestion doesn’t even help in the best-case scenario where the aggressor loses, as the invaded state still has to go through a counter-offensive over all the same areas, except the aggressor now has more resources to fight with.
So, this is not a serious alternative.
This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia, two nuclear armed nations? Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first? (maybe excluding invading Crimea). Why would Ukraine invade exactly?
Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.
NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.
So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?
This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn’t the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn’t even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn’t a glorified NATO military base.
For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.
When you’re a very serious person with a well- grounded understanding of what other governments want and how wars work.
Who could forget world War 2, when the entire population of Germany was destroyed?
I can’t think of a more fundamental breakdown in critical thinking than responding to concerns about civilian deaths by splitting hairs about whether 100% of the population was destroyed. Nearly identical to how Israel justifies genocide.
It’s hyperbole.
And famously the Nazis were just chilling out in Germany and they got invaded by another country.
If it’s hyperbole it sounds exactly like what 5 thousand dipshits have told me sincerely
Actually they were doing ethnic cleansing, like the Ukranian government was.