3 ms·

I don't think Donbas is the entire justification is it? Also, we probably had even less justification to invade Iraq yet we stayed for 20 years. Makes it really

by yucky 4y ago

I don't think Donbas is the entire justification is it? Also, we probably had even less justification to invade Iraq yet we stayed for 20 years. Makes it really hard to take any of the moralizing from the US & NATO seriously.

int_19h 4y ago
It's hard to say what the "entire justification" even is in this case, since the goalposts have been moved so rapidly since the beginning of the invasion that it's basically all blurry. Remember back when they said it's totally not about taking any land from Ukraine? But, anyway, Donbas is the primary justification for the population of Russia. The other one - that this is all a pre-emptive strike to forestall some kind of NATO invasion against Russia proper - is significantly harder to believe in and thus doesn't have as many adherents.
- yucky 4y ago
  > It's hard to say what the "entire justification" even is in this case, since the goalposts have been moved so rapidly since the beginning of the invasion that it's basically all blurry. Is this referring to Russia in Ukraine, or the US in Iraq?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    To both, so please spare us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
    - yucky 4y ago
      The problem is, the US has invaded more countries in the last 50 years than the rest of the world combined and it's always based on lies and/or ulterior motives. So we have zero credibility on this. At this point, if you don't instinctively assume our CIA/State Dept are actively working to undermine other nations then you haven't been paying attention. Why should we ever trust anything they say or do? Because Putin is a dick? Sorry, that's not quite enough to undo decades of lies I've had to listen to these turds shovel down our throats.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        As it happens, I am still a Russian citizen, so you might consider that your perspective about "why do we ever trust those guys when they always lied to us" is equally applicable from the other end. I don't need to listen to Biden to tell me that Putin is a dick; I lived under him for a decade, and still have family and friends who do. As far as comparisons go, US did a lot of shitty things internationally in the past 50 years, but I don't recall a war to directly annex parts of another country being one of them. And yes, it is far worse than "regime changes" (which are also bad, to be clear) just because of how inherently destructive such a thing is.
        yucky 4y ago
        We have economically & culturally annexed huge swaths of the world. When nations push back, we bomb them into submission.
        int_19h 4y ago
        Yes, you did. And while it's not a positive influence on the world, it's far better than physical occupation. There are countries that had a chance to compare the two, and you might note that most of them are currently in NATO - because their population wanted it. But if you want to seek redemption, helping a nation pushing back against another, even more brutal empire trying to bomb it into submission seems like a perfect chance, no?
        yucky 4y ago
        > it's far better than physical occupation. We did that too. We invaded and occupied Iraq for 20 years and just recently left. Same for Afghanistan. We're still in northern Syria, illegally. So the point stands - we have no credibility on this issue.

by yucky 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

It's hard to say what the "entire justification" even is in this case, since the goalposts have been moved so rapidly since the beginning of the invasion that it's basically all blurry. Remember back when they said it's totally not about taking any land from Ukraine? But, anyway, Donbas is the primary justification for the population of Russia. The other one - that this is all a pre-emptive strike to forestall some kind of NATO invasion against Russia proper - is significantly harder to believe in and thus doesn't have as many adherents.

yucky 4y ago
> It's hard to say what the "entire justification" even is in this case, since the goalposts have been moved so rapidly since the beginning of the invasion that it's basically all blurry. Is this referring to Russia in Ukraine, or the US in Iraq?
- int_19h 4y ago
  To both, so please spare us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
  - yucky 4y ago
    The problem is, the US has invaded more countries in the last 50 years than the rest of the world combined and it's always based on lies and/or ulterior motives. So we have zero credibility on this. At this point, if you don't instinctively assume our CIA/State Dept are actively working to undermine other nations then you haven't been paying attention. Why should we ever trust anything they say or do? Because Putin is a dick? Sorry, that's not quite enough to undo decades of lies I've had to listen to these turds shovel down our throats.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      As it happens, I am still a Russian citizen, so you might consider that your perspective about "why do we ever trust those guys when they always lied to us" is equally applicable from the other end. I don't need to listen to Biden to tell me that Putin is a dick; I lived under him for a decade, and still have family and friends who do. As far as comparisons go, US did a lot of shitty things internationally in the past 50 years, but I don't recall a war to directly annex parts of another country being one of them. And yes, it is far worse than "regime changes" (which are also bad, to be clear) just because of how inherently destructive such a thing is.
      - yucky 4y ago
        We have economically & culturally annexed huge swaths of the world. When nations push back, we bomb them into submission.
        int_19h 4y ago
        Yes, you did. And while it's not a positive influence on the world, it's far better than physical occupation. There are countries that had a chance to compare the two, and you might note that most of them are currently in NATO - because their population wanted it. But if you want to seek redemption, helping a nation pushing back against another, even more brutal empire trying to bomb it into submission seems like a perfect chance, no?
        yucky 4y ago
        > it's far better than physical occupation. We did that too. We invaded and occupied Iraq for 20 years and just recently left. Same for Afghanistan. We're still in northern Syria, illegally. So the point stands - we have no credibility on this issue.