5 ms·

Do you find the current Ukraine a morale grey area? What's the argument? Maybe Ukraine had it coming? They didn't deserve their freedom anyway?

contravariant 5y ago
You can disagree with an opinion while still supporting someone's right to speak it.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  In my short life, I've supported the right of many people to say shit I disagree with. Even pretty awful, disgusting shit at that. How come I'm able to draw the line at "supporting an unjustified genocidal war, the invasion and killing of my neighbours, and the destruction of their homes"? How come I'm able to see the difference between "freedom of having and speaking opinions that are contrary to the mainstream's", and "freedom to want to murder innocents"?
john_moscow 5y ago
Ukraine is a victim of an aging dictator that lost his marbles. A dictator that accomplished his goals within Russia without any opposition, got bored, and decided to play a rather bloody chess game geopolitically. That said, it started with Putin gradually eliminating opposition, controlling mainstream media and blocking non-mainstream ones, beating down all organizations that had organized people working together and expressing alternative opinion (religious organizations, trucker unions, heritage funds). The West is currently about 1-1.5 decades behind. We are silencing fringe voices instead of reasoning with them. We are canceling dissidents instead of tolerating them. We let a handful of people with their own interests decide what is "information" and what is "misinformation". If we let this process continue, it will inevitably follow the Russian curve. The mechanics here is very simple: once you create a position of power that decides what is right and what is wrong, the person occupying this position will seek more rights and wrongs simply to justify their existence. And others will join that cause for the sake of promotion/influence. Such structures only fall in a larger turmoil (bankruptcy of a company, fall of the government, etc) that inevitably brings a lot of destruction.
- moistly 5y ago
  I am so tired hearing “we have to listen to fringe voices” because oh my lord so many of those fringe voices are anti-democratic, accelerationists, theists, and/or greedy misanthropes. Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again. Fringe voices need to give their heads a shake and sit this one out.
  - john_moscow 5y ago
    Coincidentally, Russia's history for censorship starts with banning the popular-back-then neo-nazi party[0]. 20 years later, you get a prison sentence for questioning the "special military operation in the Ukraine". But no, this time is different. I'm so tired listening to the bad guys, let the good guys shut them up... /s [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity
    - moistly 5y ago
      I repeat: Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again. Don’t support the mafia, you goof.
powerapple 5y ago
I believe the war is engineered by the US, the only country benefits so much from this war, the US actually had intelligence about the war before anyone else, even called for it before it actually happened. So far, US's plan is working, Russia will be a lot weaker and Europe is very dependent on US, a lot money to be made on energy and weapon sales. Probably US will try to use the same strategy with China if this works well against Russia. That's my personal prediction. Once Russia is weaken, US will move immediately on China.
- wklauss 5y ago
  How do you explain Putin's speech at the beginning of the conflict, claiming a return to previous imperial Russia borders? Or the fact that a quick celebratory article explaining Russians, Belarusians and Ukranians where united again was published by mistake and then quickly deleted by Russia's main news agency? Is Putin a US agent in this scenario?
  - powerapple 5y ago
    My mine reasoning is that: 1) on YouTube, there are many talks from American scholars, officials and intelligence talked about Ukraine, and predicted this conflict, even before the invasion, US insists that (although NATO doesn't want Ukraine) Ukraine has right to join NATO. US has trained Ukraine to be the frontline to fight Russia, knowing Russia would take action in response to NATO's plan; 2) US and UK are not worried the war would affect them directly, they are pushing to continue this conflict to bleed Russia economy and military, while other European countries who have a lot to lose want this conflict to end; 3) This war is not really about Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and US. To US's advantage, it is a proxy war where US does not need to participate directly. I believe US is more than happy to have this war than a direct conflict (which would result casualties and push back by voters); 4) Because this is mainly a US-Russia conflict, only US and Russia can stop this. US has shown no interests of deescalating the situation, instead, US has been using this as an opportunity to criticizing China, taking advantages of the situation. So far, US has not called for negotiation at all. In response to your question, here is what Putin said:"It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-to-russia-on-ukraine-feb-24 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...) I think Putin's stupid to do this, look at history of war, US's 20 years in Afghanistan, 20 years in Iraq, how can you invade a country? Maybe his plan was to get rid of Zelensky quickly.
hef19898 5y ago
I do and I don't. First, it is an unprovoked invasion of sovereign state. As such it is unlawful, morale bankrupt and totally unacceptable. It is also utterly stupid on more levels than can be possibly covered here. It is kind of a grey area when it come to the West in general. The West invaded Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, intervened in the Balkans. We in the West had Vietnam and Cuba, we had Algeria and all those little known wars in Africa. All of those were framed in ways not to different from what Russia is trying in Ukraine. Now, taking in refugees is seen as a sign of how great we are. When we refugees from other countries and regions in Europe it was called refugee crisis and ended up with people living in shitty camps and illegal push backs (the guy leading FRONTEX organizing those is still in charge despite indisputable proof). Europe is treating Ukrainian refugees way different from non-Ukrainians fleeing from the same war, not to mention those refugees stuck in Belarus. Western intervention in Ukraine is more than justified, once it is over and we have some time the West should do some much needed soul searching so. Not that I think that's gonna happen.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Yeah, here it is. Took 15 minutes for that comment about censorship to get an answer equating it with Russia support. The Internet is fast.
- mindslight 5y ago
  And yet based on further comments trotting out the NATO canard, the inference was correct. While there are certainly abstract free speech arguments to be made about Germany (and larger Europe), and despite being a proponent of the ideal of frees speech, I'm not particularly eager to advocate for it in the context of Europe during wartime.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Hum... I'm not sure you meant misrepresent the OP's ideas and painting him as a genocide apologist was the "right thing to do" or that banning the symbol is ok. And if you meant that banning the symbol is ok, it does not immediately follow that discussion about the censorship (it is still censorship, even if it's ok) should be banned. Anyway, in a huge thread, there appeared a single answer about NATO. So if you want to go tag something, that answer is a good one.
johnyzee 5y ago
It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side. Which speaks to the effectiveness of the suppression of information and propaganda in the 'free world' which we unironically label ourselves. Ukraine's NATO membership is bound to be viewed as a threat by Russia. Regardless of whether you think this justifies the invasion, it can't simply be written off as 'nazism', a childish oversimplification of the issue. (And if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed).
- sofixa 5y ago
  > It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side The Russian side doesn't matter. They're invading in a brutal manner a sovereign country for the interests of an authoritarian leader and his clique. It doesn't matter why he thinks this is the best course of action ( it isn't, whatever he hoped to achieve was unachievable from day 1), he's flat out wrong and doing a morally abhorrent thing. All of the excuses Russia has provided for the invasion are very flimsy at best, but usually outrageous ( like that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no national identity). Russia has multiple NATO neighbours ( Baltics, Poland). Occupying Ukraine will add a few more ( Hungary, Slovakia, Romania). Even if we take Putin's "geopolitical concerns" at face value, and we shouldn't because Russia has done nothing but lie, it doesn't make sense. But again, it doesn't matter why the crazy old person is bombing maternity hospitals, the important part is that he is, he deserves all the pushback possible and he should be punished for that. The comparisons to the Nazis are in the playbook only - delusions of grandeur and nationalism, dismissal of other peoples, X isn't a real country, etc.
- timeon 5y ago
  > It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side. Most people know this. But Ukraine was not even able to join NATO because of disputed territories. So in case of Ukraine argument about NATO threat is pretty naive.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  > if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed Yeah, well, you say that but you're here continuously defending them, and you're bringing up weak arguments. Upthread you've also said you "read RT daily", and maybe that has something to do with it. FWIW, I'm extremely familiar with the Russian side of the argument. Not everyone is because not everyone is interested in digging into geopolitical issues that don't concern them directly beyond reading the news over breakfast cereal or vaguely scrolling a couple of retweets. This doesn't imply they're "brainwashed" or that we "suppress information"; I had no trouble at all finding all of Putin's idiotic arguments since 0224. Of course, you can play right into his hands and "discuss NATO" or some shit, as if there is ANY justification to the war crimes and atrocities being committed every day. Civilians being explicitly targeted, hospitals and shelters being bombed, chemical weapons being used, and so on. "Yes but you see, NATO" is justifying the unjustifiable.

contravariant 5y ago

You can disagree with an opinion while still supporting someone's right to speak it.

scrollaway 5y ago
In my short life, I've supported the right of many people to say shit I disagree with. Even pretty awful, disgusting shit at that. How come I'm able to draw the line at "supporting an unjustified genocidal war, the invasion and killing of my neighbours, and the destruction of their homes"? How come I'm able to see the difference between "freedom of having and speaking opinions that are contrary to the mainstream's", and "freedom to want to murder innocents"?

john_moscow 5y ago

Ukraine is a victim of an aging dictator that lost his marbles. A dictator that accomplished his goals within Russia without any opposition, got bored, and decided to play a rather bloody chess game geopolitically. That said, it started with Putin gradually eliminating opposition, controlling mainstream media and blocking non-mainstream ones, beating down all organizations that had organized people working together and expressing alternative opinion (religious organizations, trucker unions, heritage funds). The West is currently about 1-1.5 decades behind. We are silencing fringe voices instead of reasoning with them. We are canceling dissidents instead of tolerating them. We let a handful of people with their own interests decide what is "information" and what is "misinformation". If we let this process continue, it will inevitably follow the Russian curve. The mechanics here is very simple: once you create a position of power that decides what is right and what is wrong, the person occupying this position will seek more rights and wrongs simply to justify their existence. And others will join that cause for the sake of promotion/influence. Such structures only fall in a larger turmoil (bankruptcy of a company, fall of the government, etc) that inevitably brings a lot of destruction.

moistly 5y ago
I am so tired hearing “we have to listen to fringe voices” because oh my lord so many of those fringe voices are anti-democratic, accelerationists, theists, and/or greedy misanthropes. Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again. Fringe voices need to give their heads a shake and sit this one out.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  Coincidentally, Russia's history for censorship starts with banning the popular-back-then neo-nazi party[0]. 20 years later, you get a prison sentence for questioning the "special military operation in the Ukraine". But no, this time is different. I'm so tired listening to the bad guys, let the good guys shut them up... /s [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Unity
  - moistly 5y ago
    I repeat: Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again. Don’t support the mafia, you goof.

powerapple 5y ago

I believe the war is engineered by the US, the only country benefits so much from this war, the US actually had intelligence about the war before anyone else, even called for it before it actually happened. So far, US's plan is working, Russia will be a lot weaker and Europe is very dependent on US, a lot money to be made on energy and weapon sales. Probably US will try to use the same strategy with China if this works well against Russia. That's my personal prediction. Once Russia is weaken, US will move immediately on China.

wklauss 5y ago
How do you explain Putin's speech at the beginning of the conflict, claiming a return to previous imperial Russia borders? Or the fact that a quick celebratory article explaining Russians, Belarusians and Ukranians where united again was published by mistake and then quickly deleted by Russia's main news agency? Is Putin a US agent in this scenario?
- powerapple 5y ago
  My mine reasoning is that: 1) on YouTube, there are many talks from American scholars, officials and intelligence talked about Ukraine, and predicted this conflict, even before the invasion, US insists that (although NATO doesn't want Ukraine) Ukraine has right to join NATO. US has trained Ukraine to be the frontline to fight Russia, knowing Russia would take action in response to NATO's plan; 2) US and UK are not worried the war would affect them directly, they are pushing to continue this conflict to bleed Russia economy and military, while other European countries who have a lot to lose want this conflict to end; 3) This war is not really about Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and US. To US's advantage, it is a proxy war where US does not need to participate directly. I believe US is more than happy to have this war than a direct conflict (which would result casualties and push back by voters); 4) Because this is mainly a US-Russia conflict, only US and Russia can stop this. US has shown no interests of deescalating the situation, instead, US has been using this as an opportunity to criticizing China, taking advantages of the situation. So far, US has not called for negotiation at all. In response to your question, here is what Putin said:"It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-to-russia-on-ukraine-feb-24 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...) I think Putin's stupid to do this, look at history of war, US's 20 years in Afghanistan, 20 years in Iraq, how can you invade a country? Maybe his plan was to get rid of Zelensky quickly.

hef19898 5y ago

I do and I don't. First, it is an unprovoked invasion of sovereign state. As such it is unlawful, morale bankrupt and totally unacceptable. It is also utterly stupid on more levels than can be possibly covered here. It is kind of a grey area when it come to the West in general. The West invaded Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, intervened in the Balkans. We in the West had Vietnam and Cuba, we had Algeria and all those little known wars in Africa. All of those were framed in ways not to different from what Russia is trying in Ukraine. Now, taking in refugees is seen as a sign of how great we are. When we refugees from other countries and regions in Europe it was called refugee crisis and ended up with people living in shitty camps and illegal push backs (the guy leading FRONTEX organizing those is still in charge despite indisputable proof). Europe is treating Ukrainian refugees way different from non-Ukrainians fleeing from the same war, not to mention those refugees stuck in Belarus. Western intervention in Ukraine is more than justified, once it is over and we have some time the West should do some much needed soul searching so. Not that I think that's gonna happen.

marcosdumay 5y ago

Yeah, here it is. Took 15 minutes for that comment about censorship to get an answer equating it with Russia support. The Internet is fast.

mindslight 5y ago
And yet based on further comments trotting out the NATO canard, the inference was correct. While there are certainly abstract free speech arguments to be made about Germany (and larger Europe), and despite being a proponent of the ideal of frees speech, I'm not particularly eager to advocate for it in the context of Europe during wartime.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Hum... I'm not sure you meant misrepresent the OP's ideas and painting him as a genocide apologist was the "right thing to do" or that banning the symbol is ok. And if you meant that banning the symbol is ok, it does not immediately follow that discussion about the censorship (it is still censorship, even if it's ok) should be banned. Anyway, in a huge thread, there appeared a single answer about NATO. So if you want to go tag something, that answer is a good one.

johnyzee 5y ago

It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side. Which speaks to the effectiveness of the suppression of information and propaganda in the 'free world' which we unironically label ourselves. Ukraine's NATO membership is bound to be viewed as a threat by Russia. Regardless of whether you think this justifies the invasion, it can't simply be written off as 'nazism', a childish oversimplification of the issue. (And if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed).

sofixa 5y ago
> It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side The Russian side doesn't matter. They're invading in a brutal manner a sovereign country for the interests of an authoritarian leader and his clique. It doesn't matter why he thinks this is the best course of action ( it isn't, whatever he hoped to achieve was unachievable from day 1), he's flat out wrong and doing a morally abhorrent thing. All of the excuses Russia has provided for the invasion are very flimsy at best, but usually outrageous ( like that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no national identity). Russia has multiple NATO neighbours ( Baltics, Poland). Occupying Ukraine will add a few more ( Hungary, Slovakia, Romania). Even if we take Putin's "geopolitical concerns" at face value, and we shouldn't because Russia has done nothing but lie, it doesn't make sense. But again, it doesn't matter why the crazy old person is bombing maternity hospitals, the important part is that he is, he deserves all the pushback possible and he should be punished for that. The comparisons to the Nazis are in the playbook only - delusions of grandeur and nationalism, dismissal of other peoples, X isn't a real country, etc.
timeon 5y ago
> It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side. Most people know this. But Ukraine was not even able to join NATO because of disputed territories. So in case of Ukraine argument about NATO threat is pretty naive.
scrollaway 5y ago
> if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed Yeah, well, you say that but you're here continuously defending them, and you're bringing up weak arguments. Upthread you've also said you "read RT daily", and maybe that has something to do with it. FWIW, I'm extremely familiar with the Russian side of the argument. Not everyone is because not everyone is interested in digging into geopolitical issues that don't concern them directly beyond reading the news over breakfast cereal or vaguely scrolling a couple of retweets. This doesn't imply they're "brainwashed" or that we "suppress information"; I had no trouble at all finding all of Putin's idiotic arguments since 0224. Of course, you can play right into his hands and "discuss NATO" or some shit, as if there is ANY justification to the war crimes and atrocities being committed every day. Civilians being explicitly targeted, hospitals and shelters being bombed, chemical weapons being used, and so on. "Yes but you see, NATO" is justifying the unjustifiable.