I’m not sure making peace by moving a border by a few hundred miles you’re never going to be able to actually militarily reclaim to begin with is accurately described as killing, but, sure? I guess war is peace.
Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
It doesn’t make it right, they were wrong to violate the international border back in 2014 to begin with, but you could wipe out whole Ukrainian generations ala WWI, and they’re not going to retake what Russia has now. You’re spilling blood and treasure for nothing, like every US foreign misadventure of my lifetime instead of coming to terms with an unfortunate reality.
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but it’s just not an argument against imperialism. If anything it’s an argument for multi-polarity, but even then I don’t think it’s the kind of multipolarity leftists are looking for.
I’m speaking to the terms the neolibs understand, nationalist victory, borders on a map, blood, and most importantly, money. Although, if we’re getting into opinions about rhetorical efficacy, and I truly don’t mean offense by this, I’m just talking in general, I think the term “imperialism” comes across as haughty and doesn’t really speak to the moment, in which it’s all very imperialistic I 100% grant you, but, and this is just my opinion and I’m not a political scientist – to say “imperialism” as such is just… it strikes me as of an earlier era. While it’s important to respect our past (I literally cry for “Solidarity Forever”) I feel like what the neolibs lack, and where their weakness is, is the connection to humanity, which they have completely lost (Thus the “the economy is good, why aren’t you grateful, idiot!” platform of the Biden admin) and I think language like “imperialism” makes people either roll their eyes because they’ve heard it before or roll their eyes because they don’t find in relevant to their material condition in a neoliberal world where your interactions are almost exclusively with private actors, even on the state’s behalf in neocolonial contexts.
I’m not sure making peace by moving a border by a few hundred miles you’re never going to be able to actually militarily reclaim to begin with is accurately described as killing, but, sure? I guess war is peace.
How many Buchas and how many thousands of children kidnapped until supporting Russia is no longer anti-imperialist?
Don’t worry - I know you have no limit.
I’m not sure ‘might makes right’ is the anti-imperial argument you’re looking for here.
lmao, yet it’s the argument that all of your comrades resort to with regards to the Ukrainian situation.
At least it’s not ‘we’ll give you the means to destroy yourself in service of hurting Russia’ like all of your western buddies like arguing.
“Defending yourself against genocide is actually destroying yourself”
Want to remind me how this ISN’T a might makes right argument, the kind of which you supposedly were against just one comment ago?
You can’t stay consistent for a single comment. Unbelievable. But anything to simp for fascists, I guess. I’m sorry, ‘Anti-Imperialist Fascists’.
Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
It doesn’t make it right, they were wrong to violate the international border back in 2014 to begin with, but you could wipe out whole Ukrainian generations ala WWI, and they’re not going to retake what Russia has now. You’re spilling blood and treasure for nothing, like every US foreign misadventure of my lifetime instead of coming to terms with an unfortunate reality.
I’m just pointing out the argumentative failure.
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but it’s just not an argument against imperialism. If anything it’s an argument for multi-polarity, but even then I don’t think it’s the kind of multipolarity leftists are looking for.
I’m speaking to the terms the neolibs understand, nationalist victory, borders on a map, blood, and most importantly, money. Although, if we’re getting into opinions about rhetorical efficacy, and I truly don’t mean offense by this, I’m just talking in general, I think the term “imperialism” comes across as haughty and doesn’t really speak to the moment, in which it’s all very imperialistic I 100% grant you, but, and this is just my opinion and I’m not a political scientist – to say “imperialism” as such is just… it strikes me as of an earlier era. While it’s important to respect our past (I literally cry for “Solidarity Forever”) I feel like what the neolibs lack, and where their weakness is, is the connection to humanity, which they have completely lost (Thus the “the economy is good, why aren’t you grateful, idiot!” platform of the Biden admin) and I think language like “imperialism” makes people either roll their eyes because they’ve heard it before or roll their eyes because they don’t find in relevant to their material condition in a neoliberal world where your interactions are almost exclusively with private actors, even on the state’s behalf in neocolonial contexts.