Here’s a map of the global freedom status, and Russia seems to be in the same group with most of Africa Middle East and Asia. Considering this context, the news article doesn’t seem surprising at all. Just another sad day in Russia.
The makers of this map, Freedom House, receive funding mainly from the US government. They also took money from BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest arms manufacturer.
So is Turkey, your NATO ally who bombs minorities and steals other peoples cultural heritage. Stop being a hypocrite
Unfortunately NATO wasn’t designed in a way that conceived of a rogue member state like Turkey. This means that it has a very limited toolkit for reigning in Erdogan’s excesses. He also has a huge amount of leverage due to Turkey’s pivotal role on the Black Sea which is obviously critical to everything happening in Ukraine. For now, NATO really does have its hands tied with regard to Turkey.
No, it doesn’t really, they just don’t want to do anything. Everything happening in Ukraine started happening much later than Turkey happened.
And about NATO design not conceiving of something - when Turkey was admitted to NATO, there were people still alive who saw not their parents and grandparents, but their children and grandchildren killed before their eyes in 1915-1921.
It was conceived that if somebody really wanted to get rid of that thing, then it’d be possible to make a shortcut on paperwork with all the military power. 1952, remember. But then again, it was 1952, you know, colonial powers still being that and not caring much about genocides of brown people. So nobody would see Turkey’s current behavior as a problem.
I don’t think I follow your arguments. Is there a way you can rephrase your point such that a dummy like myself might understand it?
-
About rogue member states not being thought of when NATO was being created - when NATO was being created, even France and UK were more likely to behave like “rogue member states” and they did in some little known cases (Biafra, for example, or the Suez crisis). And Turkey was full-blown fascist (well, it didn’t stop being that at any point since then till now, just Westerners conveniently assumed that it changed like Japan, say, one my relative in the US from Jewish side is just in complete denial that it hasn’t as it wasn’t civilized by bombs, while at the same time uneasy with my cousins going to Germany).
-
About NATO having its hands tied against Turkey due to Ukraine - if A happened before B, you can’t justify A with B. So you can’t justify Turkey getting away with everything it does by Russia vs Ukraine taking all the attention.
I’m not talking about anyone being justified; I am talking about realpolitik and the fact that in international relations it’s often the case that what ought to be is often in direct conflict with what actually is.
It would be awesome if we could live in a world of absolutes wherein national interests never conflicted with moral ambiguity, but that’s just not reality at all, sorry to inform.
And why then it’s a problem that Russia wreaks havoc in Ukraine?..
And I don’t see Western states acting in their best interest anyway. I actually see something between slow surrender to the worst of their competition and some weird kind of “let no one win”, trying to empower the worst savages while simply not working with those of competitors who shouldn’t necessarily be their adversaries. You can also take a look at the people which reach the top in European and US political classes, these are of, eh, declining quality.
Also for my second point - an event in the future still can’t be the cause for an event in the past, justification or not.
Other than that - large parts of NATO \ West “civilization offering”, so to say, were about freedom and human rights.
And large parts of the Soviet alternative were about humanism and equality and unification.
And if it’s casual for you that people were not supposed to believe in any of that in either case, then I don’t get it why people here are so eager to point out Soviet hypocrisies as if they were any different.
It’d be probably also awesome for realpolitik fans to not forget how real world works in terms of errors. Right now an error in your security systems means some protest, some Assange or Snowden, some scandal. Getting into realpolitik too much would shift those errors to justified terrorist acts. Well, I suppose that may be one reason why some countries are so eager to get rid of nuclear energy despite all the green agenda in PR. Single point of failure and all that.
-
Similar thing happened across the border, in Ukraine, with a pacifist being accused of “justifying the war”, as reported by Democracy Now!
Russian pacifists want Russia to stop invading Ukraine.
Lemmygrad / Hexbear pacifists want Ukraine to appease Russia and give up territory.
They are not the same.
No, we want Ukraine to stop trying to ethnically cleanse the Donbas and give the people there self determination. And we want the Ukrainian government to stop forcibly conscripting people to go die needlessly on the front in a clearly losing war. We want NATO to stop enabling all of that (it literally wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t demanding that it continue). That’s what it is to be a peace activist. And I’m fairly sure I can speak for all of us, we are not pacifists, lol. But we are advocates for peace and the end to the horrible and needless loss of life.
Nice try to completely twist reality, and completely misrepresent us, as you war mongering dronies always do.
Edit: We actually give a shit about all the Ukrainian people being thrown into a fucking meat grinder. We care about their lives. The people who just say “more weapons to Ukraine!” do not give a shit about the lives of the people there. They’re happy to just let the war keep dragging on until the last capable Ukrainian is dead. An example of how WE feel about the tragedy of the situation: https://hexbear.net/post/503747 (hexbear link to a lemmygrad news post)
Edit: We actually give a shit about all the Ukrainian people being thrown into a fucking meat grinder. We care about their lives. The people who just say “more weapons to Ukraine!” do not give a shit about the lives of the people there. They’re happy to just let the war keep dragging on until the last capable Ukrainian is dead. An example of how WE feel about the tragedy of the situation: https://hexbear.net/post/503747 (hexbear link to a lemmygrad news post)
So be fucking outraged then that Russia started, and is continuing this war. They’re the ones killing Ukrainians in their homeland.
A comment from that link:
Omg, it’s a full on genocide of Ukrainian people. Just damm the Western libs… Fuck this planet.
Russia is committing genocide. They’ve been raping and killing civilians since the start, this is where your anger and energy needs to be. Imagine being outraged at the nation defending itself from genocide, and those countries that are sending the tools that they’re being asked for to help defend themselves.
Gaddafi’s troops are committing rape to children en masse, they have issued viagra to mass rape people since the start. this is where your anger and energy need to be. Imagine being outraged at the nation defending itself from mass rape, and those countries that are sending the tools that they’re being asked for to help defend themselves.
Here is the UN mandate to intervene in Lybia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 a resolution drafted by Tunisia and supported by the African Union, the Arab League and allowed by all of the UNSC.
Where is russia’s UN mandate to annex Crimea and to later bomb Kiev? Did they even try?
Libya today is a haven for islamic terrorism and slaver markets. Regardless of the “legality” of the NATO (mostly french and US led) intervention, it threw the entire region in outright chaos, and was enormously damaging to the working class of Lybia, but also of the entire fucking Sahel.
So be fucking outraged then that Russia started and is continuing this war
its so weird that the day the tanks rolled over the border of Ukraine history magically just began, there was no material reality prior to this event, or any geopolitical events of consequence we could connect to this outcome, certainly none that had to do with openly threatening to expand a hostile military alliance with supersonic and nuclear missiles 5 minutes from the capital city of Moscow
i wonder if the US has ever done the exact same thing in the name of national security and what the NATO heads said about it then
every pro NATO take is certified baby brain shit that demonstrates nothing but a lack of understanding of material reality, history, geopolitics, on top of an absolute disregard for human life, gross hypocrisy and a level of false outrage that is always directly proportional to how loudly they’re calling to escalate bloodshed
Russia is committing genocide. “So do the humanitarian thing and send depleted uranium shells to this warzone. Slava Ukraini!!!”
log off dude
log off dude
No :)
RUSSIA BEST!!! RUSSIA THE PEACEKEEPERS!!! THE HUMANITARIANS! DEFEND RUSSIA AT ALL COSTS! SPREAD ALL THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!! RUSSIA CAN DO NO WRONG! POOR POOR RUSSIA HAD NO CHOICE!!
Am I doing it right?
No. You’re not doing it right. You’re supposed to learn what the fuck you’re talking about first. And you didn’t so now you’re having a childish tantrum at people talking back to you.
You think they told you to log off for their benefit and not your own? That’s twice you’ve said something stupid because you didn’t know what was going on around you.
They’re defending the imperialistic warmongering Russian state who are shelling and bombing civilians and who are literally creating the bloodbath.
I’m not the one that needs to log off. But go ahead and keep shilling for Russia.
Russian pacifists want Russia to stop invading Ukraine.
Western “pacifists” want to send NATO tanks to Ukraine.
They are not the same.
Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.
But an important consideration should be whether one’s actions actually contribute to Russia withdrawing sooner, or if they instead help justify further, equally self-interested NATO involvement in the war.
Unless you are Russian, it’s most likely the latter.
There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.
There are two imperialist blocs involved in the conflict, and it doesn’t matter which one of them technically started it.
I’m sorry, but when it involves one imperialist bloc invading a smaller country, then it does matter.
Do you have the same position regarding the Vietnam war, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Or do you only support whichever side is not aligned with the US?
The second you call Russia’s actions imperialist you just broadcast that you’re someone who just uses words for their impact and not their meaning and you should be completely disregarded in any conversation on the topic
TIL invading other countries and annexing their territories does not qualify as imperialism.
Finally one of you libs has learned this
The Vietnam War? You mean the one where a rebel faction backed by Russia rose up against a smaller, recently established pro-Western government, and the US came to the defense of that government, because if they lost the enemy would surely keep expanding more and more across the entire region, and all the peace advocates were dismissed as supporting appeasement? That Vietnam war?
Yes, we take a similar position on that as we do to this, do you?
Vietnam was opposing a puppet government imposed by the US.
The Ukrainians opposed a Russian puppet government in 2013.
Do you support both Vietnam and Ukraine?
I support both the Vietnamese fighting against the South Vietnam puppet government and the Ukranians in the DPR fighting against the current Ukrainian puppet government, yes (though my support for the latter is more critical since they’re not communists)
You did not answer my question.
Did you support the Ukrainians rebelling against their government back in 2013. Or do you only support a side if that side happens to oppose the US?
I literally said that
Russian anti-war activists have a correct position.
Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?
You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it’s a neat little trick called “opposing the position of your own government”.
Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?
I am.
But do you believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia without NATO’s weapon supply?
He most likely doesn’t believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia with NATO’s weapon supply, and for good reason, given how clearly this is demonstrated by the utter failure of the vaunted counter-offensive. The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).
The mere fact that they are in the act of a counter offensive after Russia tried to blitz then shows that it’s not even close to what you’re describing.
Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.
I don’t doubt this as it’s happened to others, but Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a literal CIA mouthpeice and tends to make stuff up.
Compared to Russian sources radio free liberty is a baron of truth and press accountability, so frankly it does not matter.
A shitty source not being the absolute worst source doesn’t make it any less shitty than it is. If your only options for news are US government propaganda or Russian government propaganda, the only valid choice is to stop following the news.
It literally isn’t. RFE is definitely a US propaganda platform, but it objectively has nothing to do with the CIA these days. But you should probably check under your bed one more time just to make sure.
RFE also “objectively” had nothing to do with the CIA for nearly 20 years after it was created, at which point it turned out the CIA had been funding it all along. But now we know they’ve stopped because they said they did, and anyone suggesting that they’re not editorially independent is a paranoid loon, just as they would’ve been in the 50’s and 60’s.
Some of us don’t believe that the people whose job it is to lie stopped lying because they said they did. Suggesting that the CIA is still doing things that they did regularly and successfully kept hidden in the past is not a conspiracy theory.
Why? What possible reason could you have to belive they just turned over a new leaf?
“The CIA said that they don’t have anything to do with Radio Free anymore so it must be true.”
