Oh, yes, support of Russia is advocacy for peace, in the same way that an advocate for surrender to Nazi Germany is an ‘advocate for peace’. But hey, if it’s genocide done by an Anti-Imperialist Power™, it’s actually 100% peaceful killing, right?
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Oh, yes, support of Russia is advocacy for peace, in the same way that an advocate for surrender to Nazi Germany is an ‘advocate for peace’. But hey, if it’s genocide done by an Anti-Imperialist Power™, it’s actually 100% peaceful killing, right?
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator