I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).

    • MoistMogwai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 days ago

      My Mom said Russia had to attack Ukraine, because they were trying to join NATO. I asked why she thinks Ukraine was trying to join NATO. I’m still digging for a bedrock of logic.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        7 days ago

        Part of the problem with game theory and finding a “bedrock of logic” is that game theoretical analysis is often recursive. It’s not a stack of prepositions and conclusions; it’s often a loop. Sort of like a resonance structure. I’ve got my gun aimed at you because your gun is aimed at me because my gun is aimed at you … recursively forever.

        My understanding is that the US/NATO and the USSR/Russia, ie the two sides of the Cold War, have maintained a sense of peace and security by maintaining a buffer between the two sides. A buffer of distance, which is relevant because it relates to the time it takes nuclear weapons to travel from one adversarial territory to the other.

        The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.

        The public declaration (by Kamala Harris, incidentally) that Ukraine would join NATO is a violation of a promise made by Reagan that NATO would not extend to the border of Russia.

        It’s similar to the USSR’s attempt to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, in the sense that it’s simply too close.

        That’s my understanding of the motivation behind Russia’s invasion. I’m quite new to all this though.

        So it’s less like “Stop resisting!” and more like “Drop the gun!”

        My suspicion is that MAD overall is diminishing in its power to stabilize the world militarily, as a result of new military technologies coming into play (space-based weapons, drones, AI, hypersonic missiles, iron dome scenarios) as well as more and more nuclear powers coming online, and the increasing probability of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors.

        And finally there’s China’s overall rise toward the role of hegemonic power.

        The Cold War basically organized itself (and hence organized the influences that minimized military action) around two major powers. Now there’s a third major power that’s rapidly accelerating toward becoming the major power. It’s changing all the equations that balanced out in the 1970s, 80s, etc.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.

          The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by Kennedy moving nuclear missiles into Turkey, within striking range of the USSR. It never would have happened if Kennedy hadn’t decided to start swinging his dick around.

        • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Distance is really not much of a factor any more, and hasn’t been for a long time. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg can already be reached by submarine launched cruise missiles in less than 15 minutes (conservative estimate). And let’s face it, with MAD being a thing, any kind of nuclear strike is likely to escalate into all-out nuclear annihilation, anyway. This makes any attempt at overwhelming the opponent a losing proposition. So in that sense nothing has changed since, oh, the mid-1970s?

          Then there is the argument that Russia doesn’t want a long shared border with NATO. Guess what, their aggression has caused Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which has only added to their shared border with NATO. That they already had with Poland and the Baltic states (there is no treaty nor official document prohibiting NATO expansion).

          And finally, how hard is it to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance? It is neither politically geared to nor militarily capable of mounting a conquest of Russia. The fact that so many of Russia’s neighbors are eager to join the alliance should be a pretty strong hint as to why it needs to exist in the first place. It is Russia that cannot be trusted, not NATO. And you can’t make your neighbor “drop the gun” in their own house. The Ukrainians were stupid enough already to return their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for explicit security guarantees. What a mistake that was.

          Don’t even get me started on how China is criminally underrated as a manifest threat to world peace…

        • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          The reason Ukraine wanted to join NATO is that Russia already had occupied Crimea and part of Georgia before. All that after Ukraine gave up all the nukes they still had from USSR times. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia before the occupation of Crimea.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

    Red-painted fascists just can’t help themselves. War is Completely Justified Resistance And Blowback until someone actually fights back, at which point it’s Pointlessly Extending The Conflict

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    MAGAts are either too stupid to realize or too fragile to acknowledge that they’re getting ass-fucked by putin. It’s just pathetic.

    • WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s so bizarre to see those old Soldiers of Fortune readers, with their “Better dead than red” tee shirts, all now rooting for Russia.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      Are you aware the Biden administration hasn’t spoken to Putin’s staff in two years?

      Is there, in your analogy, a macho, straight, totally non anal-sex-related kind of dignity in that refusal to communicate with a nuclear adversary?

      I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov. Is that me just going to town on Putin’s veiny cock? Is this whole thing just a big revealer of who’s really gay and who’s not?

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    For the fucking tankies and MAGAts, if the French and King Louis XVI would have turned their backs on the US colonials from 1775 to 1783, the Red Coats would have crushed your rebellion and you would have been another Dominion like Canada. Hang on, someone press reset.

  • ZMoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

    Can someone show me where all the tankies are? All I ever see is anti-tankie propaganda like this and its seems like a straw man to me. Where are the Leftists who defend Russian aggression?

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    I know it’s not relevant but it’s funny (and sad) how you can replace the two flags with Israel and Palestine and it still works.

  • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    I don’t even know what they (western tankies) get from this. Average dumbass Russian only cares about his ass, and the pretended “glory”. There is no “Conservative brotherhood which spans across the ocean”. They don’t speak your language, they don’t have the same problem, and they hate YOU with passion, because on average, they are racist and dumb.

    So my only hypothesis is that tankies think (??) that by going “contrarian” they show how smart they are, and that “did the research” lol.

    • glassware@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’m not a tankie, but I probably am what everyone in this thread is calling a “tankie”, so here’s my answer:

      Yes, it is extremely bad that Russia invaded Ukraine. The ideal scenario would have been Ukraine quickly repelling the invasion when it happened. But we don’t live in magic fantasy world where everyone gets what they deserve. We live in the real world, where Ukraine cannot possibly defeat Russia in a war. The option which saves the most Ukrainian lives is a negotiated peace, with Russia getting much more of what they want than we would like.

      All that is achieved by pouring more weapons into Ukraine is prolonging the meatgrinder for years, wiping out an entire generation of Ukrainians and risking a global nuclear war.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Ukraine had a negotiated peace before the 2022 invasion, after the 2014 invasion. Why would a 2025 negotiated peace be any more reliable?

    • caboose2006@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 days ago

      No, it’s because “America bad”. There’s a lot of reasons to hate America, and the drip feeding of munitions to Ukraine is one of them. I think we should have been sending everything from the start with the only restriction being no hitting civilian targets. A million 155 shells a week. Tomahawks. Predator drones. Hell, even F-15s. I agree, end the war, but end it in a Ukrainian victory with their borders restored.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Tankies entire world view is formed around hating the US.

      They will glorify terrible regimes that literally commit genocides and straight up murder thousands of innocents just because that regime is in opposition to US influence.

      They use left wing language, but they do not care about leftist issues. They do not care about disabled people getting focibly euthanised, about anyone who dares critique the regime being forcibly silenced, about minorities being genocided (unless the US or NATO does it), that their “socialist states” literally have billionaires while others starve. They think it’s all US propaganda. (Alternatively, they’ll admit part of it and say it’s for the greater good).

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      That includes only battlefield context. Truth is Russia will at the very best economically and politically fall into a 3rd world country level the moment it loses the war. More probably dissolve into smaller states = there would be no Russia as we know it today anymore.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      At this stage, since they have fought so well, I’d guess there would just be a much smaller, much weaker Ukraine.

      We will likely see this happen now Trump is president. He is too egotistical to not take revenge on them for not playing along with his quid pro quo back in 2019.

      The Ukrainian flags in republican yards never meant a thing… They sold Ukraine out at the polls.

  • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Remember that the original Canadian intent of the UN Peacekeepers was that they would forcibly create and enforce peace.

    It was the USSR and the USA that objected to the concept.

    • The Octonaut@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 days ago

      Ireland has peacekeepers between Israel and Lebanon right now. They wouldn’t be there if “create peace” was one of the missions.

      Peace must exist, however briefly, and then the peacekeepers place themselves in harm’s way to keep the peace.

      Extend the mission to militarily “create peace” and suddenly you are just NATO/USA. How can either side trust a peace that was enforced upon them and not call it a defeat, whose borders are disputed for eternity? Every nationalist who wants to stir sentiment can just say “look what the British/Americans/UN imposed on us”. Outside forces drawing borders is pretty much the cause of 90% of warfare, civil and otherwise, for the last 80 years.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Similarly if most countries have a mutual defence pact, no one country will be able to invade another without being at war with literally the whole world.

      • yesman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’m afraid that mutual defense isn’t as iron clad as you think. If Article 5 of NATO ever gets triggered you’ll get a masterclass on weaseling out of obligations. It’s ironic because Ukraine may already be receiving the kind of support a full NATO member is entitled to.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Unfortunately with Trump the US will try to weasel their way out. Europe knows too well what happens.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 days ago

            This does seem likely with Trump… but he’s also in bed with the military-industrial complex, which never misses a chance to get contracts.

        • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          It only works if you actually commit to it.

          But imagine the implications if a country did not commit to it (bar an obvious one like Hungary or Turkey). They’ll likely get sanctioned, probably will have trouble entering any useful alliances for the next decade or so because no one trusts them anymore.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 days ago

            If one didn’t, sure. But what happens when NATO as a whole doesn’t defend Poland? What’s Poland going to do? Or even just Trump’s US?

            • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              The trick is that (Eastern) Europe is filled with NATO troops and material from all countries. You would need an extremely nasty retreat of these troops if you do not support (say) Poland. Also at the moment (officially) the US has stationed nuclear weapons in 6 European countries, and there are very likely more also in the form of submarines that are not known to the public. Retreating means leaving those weapons in Russian hands. Then again, maybe Trump does not care about that.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Well ideally if you don’t want to be a part of an agreement, you just tell the people you made the agreement with that you are no longer a part of it.

              If you do so amicably, parties may be fine with it it may not have bad effects. If you wait till one of those counties is being invaded and back out, it likely would not end amicably, and with them having to switch over to a wartime economy, they may cut all trade moving forward with the member who screwed them over. Could cost the U.S. trillions in trade annually.

              Aka it would be more profitable to support your allies, or get out of the agreement early, but that doesn’t guarantee counties don’t say… Why should we trade with someone who would hang us out to dry? And it hurts our economy anyway.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      A Canadian was also the principal author of the UN declaration on human rights, and another was the reason NATO is a political as well as military alliance. We just keep winning!

  • Pyrin@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I wonder how these people would feel if there were individuals that would argue for thieves to break into their homes and take it over.

    “I don’t want anything of mine stolen! they broke in!”

    “But sir, why don’t you want people to have a place to live in? Make peace with it!”

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s more like you fight your roommate and his friends come over to bully you. You get some weapon once in a while through the window. Still you are on your own vs 10. Also from outside they instruct you to use your young children to fight.

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      Don’t forget… They broke into your house, took over your living room, killed 2 of your family members in there and said “Let’s make an election”. Surprisingly, they won the election in your living room, because dead people can’t vote and they were allowed to vote, too.