Being a tankie doesn’t mean that you agree with everything any non-Western state does, it just means that you’re critical of war and are willing to consider internationalist perspectives.
Yeah, I don’t fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war, just as I don’t agree with Ukraine’s shelling of Donbass in violation of Minsk II, or with the coup and banning of opposition parties that led the disputed territories to declare independence.
The best case scenario, as has been the case since the start, is for a peace agreement to be reached as soon as possible to prevent further loss of life. Which reactionary government controls the disputed territories isn’t worth people dying over.
Yeah, I don’t fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war
Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s
You said you “don’t fully agree” with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn’t provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.
I also wouldn’t expect people who are criticial of war to say that they “don’t fully agree” with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.
Thank you. We can either have a good faith discussion based on facts and evidence and what was actually said, or we can have this cable news-tier bullshit of putting words into mouths and bad faith mischaracterization. I’d prefer the former.
Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup. I treat both of those claims with roughly equal skepticism. I don’t doubt that both movements have some degree of organic support, or that both have received foreign funding and support. I’ll also note that, for example, the American revolution had support from the French, so I don’t consider either movement accepting foreign support automatically disqualifying.
Regardless, the question is what the best scenario is going forward. I don’t see either side as being particularly concerned with the well-being of the people living there, or in actual democratic representation or anything like that. As far as I can see, it’s just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight. The interests of states are generally disconnected from those of the people.
In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should’ve been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started. And if that had happened, the people would be happy and comfortable and loyal to whoever provided it. Instead, conditions declined, people became resentful and felt that there was nothing to lose, and now we have this conflict and people are being forced into a meat grinder against their will. It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions and divert the resources used for war towards rebuilding. Likewise, Russia could’ve used the funds they’re using now to relocate the people loyal to them into Russia. This was is wasteful and destructive and benefits no one but the people in power on both sides.
Russia is terrible on LGBT rights.
Being a tankie doesn’t mean that you agree with everything any non-Western state does, it just means that you’re critical of war and are willing to consider internationalist perspectives.
What? It absolutely does not. It means you’re an authoritarian “communist”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Russia is terrible on war
Yeah, I don’t fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war, just as I don’t agree with Ukraine’s shelling of Donbass in violation of Minsk II, or with the coup and banning of opposition parties that led the disputed territories to declare independence.
The best case scenario, as has been the case since the start, is for a peace agreement to be reached as soon as possible to prevent further loss of life. Which reactionary government controls the disputed territories isn’t worth people dying over.
Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s
Let’s not forget that there would have been no “Ukrainian Civil War” if Russia hadn’t annexed Crimea.
I used precisely one adjective in that comment to describe Russia’s government, could you tell me what it was?
You said you “don’t fully agree” with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn’t provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.
I also wouldn’t expect people who are criticial of war to say that they “don’t fully agree” with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.
Answer the question, please. It’s not hard.
You said that they are a reactionary government, but you also implied that their reactionary justification to invade is legitimate.
Thank you. We can either have a good faith discussion based on facts and evidence and what was actually said, or we can have this cable news-tier bullshit of putting words into mouths and bad faith mischaracterization. I’d prefer the former.
Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup. I treat both of those claims with roughly equal skepticism. I don’t doubt that both movements have some degree of organic support, or that both have received foreign funding and support. I’ll also note that, for example, the American revolution had support from the French, so I don’t consider either movement accepting foreign support automatically disqualifying.
Regardless, the question is what the best scenario is going forward. I don’t see either side as being particularly concerned with the well-being of the people living there, or in actual democratic representation or anything like that. As far as I can see, it’s just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests, and I don’t really have a dog in that fight. The interests of states are generally disconnected from those of the people.
In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should’ve been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started. And if that had happened, the people would be happy and comfortable and loyal to whoever provided it. Instead, conditions declined, people became resentful and felt that there was nothing to lose, and now we have this conflict and people are being forced into a meat grinder against their will. It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions and divert the resources used for war towards rebuilding. Likewise, Russia could’ve used the funds they’re using now to relocate the people loyal to them into Russia. This was is wasteful and destructive and benefits no one but the people in power on both sides.
You don’t agree with most aspects of reality.
Such as?