this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1376 points (98.5% liked)

World News

32045 readers
851 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US bombing is bad, but Russian bombing is ok? Why do you not apply the same critical spirit to both the USA war crimes and the Russian war crimes?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ukraine was bombing the Donbas since 2014. Is Ukrainian bombing okay?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it constitutes war crimes according to neutral analysts, it's not.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah it's just like they're Sudeten-Russians, happy to become real Russians once again

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that the Germans had the popular support of Sudetenland in their annexation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".

Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.