this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
411 points (90.4% liked)
World News
31456 readers
996 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And why shouldn't he?
Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.
russia can end this whenever they want by restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, if they think the US is benefiting so much from it at their expense. The US is just making it much harder for russia to reach its maximalist goals: to conquer Ukraine. One of those is a war crime, the other one is supporting international law.
International law is when you support a government coup to replace the pro-Russia government with a pro-EU/pro-NATO government.
International law is when russia does not annex Crimea because of the unfavourable internal affairs of its neighbour. You know, your power ends at "these" borders and from there to here you can't threaten the Ukrainian President.
The coup government illegally removed the previous president, so they don't get to complain when Crimea illegally votes to join Russia.
Yea, well, did you hear about how the President escaped and the Parliament voted to destitute him. And when you invade Crimea to do a mock referendum, that's awesome international law. Not even Iran and China recognize the annexation of Crimea, because you can't invade a country and referendum an annexation unilaterally.
Most of the people living in Crimea work for the Russian Black Sea Fleet you dork. They didn't have to invade Crimea, they already had a huge military instalation there. And no one cares about international law, least of all NATO.
Also Crimea has been trying to get autonomy or leave Ukraine for thirty years.
The parliament had no constitutional authority to vote to expell him without an impeachment hearing, which he never got. It was an illegal move.
The referendum in Crimea is as legitimate as the acting president of Ukraine.
Ah yes, the revolution to overthrow the Russian puppet who gave the government dictatorial powers so that it could arrest anyone they wanted for years at a time without a trial, was a bad thing.
I think they just should've accepted their fate while their country became a dictatorial hell hole.
Bro, you're just straight up evil.
The US isn't making it much harder, it's making it pay.
Indeed, making russia pay for trying to conquer a sovereign country by helping that country defend itself.
This is a little ahistorical.
Wouldn't happen if you didn't try to conquer countries
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Alright but what would guarantee Russia's safety after they do that? It's obviously not in their interest. What they want is to negotiate a peace treaty, which is why they are holding their defense line so strongly until their opponents are exhausted.
Who the fuck is threatening russia? It’s all imagined bullshit.
Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine? What opinion are they not going to change?
Because the reasons to support Ukraine are supposed to be noble and not completely self-interested. That's why there is popular support for it. McConnell admitting that it's about funneling money into the military industrial complex, at least in part, ought to make at least some people reconsider their assumptions
Ah I see now. It's about the motivations behind the support. Thanks for the insight!
It's actually quite interesting. Personally, I try to remain neutral on politics but I'm definitely fed a left-leaning social media diet. Within that content, the general reason to support Ukraine is still self centered. "Go beat up the Russian military because they're the bad guys and our cost is super low." The nobility of this support feels like a happy side effect. But the really interesting part is that "funneling money into the military industrial complex" simply isn't focused at all. This is the first time I've considered that aspect.
Yeah... About that. There is no neutrality in politics.
Why don't you go look up what the US and Saudi did to Yemen over the last decade and decide how you feel about sitting on that fence.
They're not beating up the Russian military. They're fertilizing the fields of Ukraine that the Rada is going to sell to Blackrock. There's nothing noble about this. NATO pushed and pushed and pushed until the RF took the bait, and now they're bleeding the RF using Ukrainians because they don't give a shit about Ukrainians. Christ this is so frustrating ISTG if people would just read Sun Tzu they'd understand everything and we wouldn't need to have these absurd conversations over and over.
You don't need to go super far left to find convincing arguments against US foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual after all, and he coined the phrase "consent manufacturing".
The idea that the US acts in total self interest should be presumed true in all cases, but that doesn't on its own defeat the idea that its intervention in Ukraine is good. The logical next step is to ask ourselves whether this intervention ever had any chance of changing the outcome of the conflict at all. If it didn't, and most people here would agree that it didn't, then the US' involvement amounts to wartime profiteering at the cost of human lives.
edit: I should also add, there's good reason to believe that NATO expansion is what caused the conflict, and that the west did this in spite of clear and explicit warnings from Russia
Opposed? Liberals are fully on board with endless war in Ukraine. It's a bipartisan consensus.
This thread is evidence of it. The quiet part gets shouted and rather than accepting that this is what MLs have been saying for two years, the libs are doubling down. Will they now accept the truth behind the quip, 'To the last Ukrainian?' Not a chance. Oblivious.
Ya that's my understanding was well. Which is why I asked the question.
Your question was: Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine?
The answer is no. I dunno what to tell you.
Liberals are just as bloodthirsty as their fashy counterparts, they just need to have their own slightly different words for why it is okay.
It took like 6 months for mainstream liberals to feel 100% comfortable thinking of Russians as subhuman monsters deserving of any and all violence, dredging up old-school orientalist tropes, and celebrating snuff videos, making special exception for them so long as they are accompanied by a little story about how it's happening to Russians. A random Russian civilian got attacked by a shark in Egypy and liberals were rah-rahing for the shark.
Liberals will be pro-war until their corporate masters tell them not to be. Then, like with Iraq, they might pretend they werw anti-war the whole time.
I thought he was pandering to them.
Next maybe he'll admit that all of the conditions being placed on the weapons are to protract the war and its profits. Or that the US didn't support Ukraine materially at first because they didn't want to sour business relations with the projected winner.
The US would be a lot more believable as the global 'good guy' if its actions were consistent. Instead its all obfuscation and gas lighting, even when they actually seem to be doing something right. Not very trust-inspiring imo.