First things first, based on what you just said about the Ukrainian war, do you support the invasion of Iraq for the explicit purpose of regime change (getting rid of Saddam Hussein) (not the bullcrap about weapons of mass destruction).
Regarding the referendum,there were calls for boycotting the elections from people who wanted to remain united (in a way, a bit akin to the referendum of Catalonia in 2017). Thirdly, it still remains extremely suspicious that a new country that allegedly wishes to get international legitimacy would not try to get any international observers, from any country, not even from the “Global South”, China, none at all.
Regarding the Minsk agreements, it appears that there were several violations from both parties, from both sides not committing to the ceasefire for several days, the Ukranians failing to approve the constitutional amendment as mandated per the Minsk agreements, and the failure from both the LPR and DPR to organise the local elections. And I would guess that Russian intervention should be limited to either sanctions or limited intervention in the Donbass region, not a whole invasion of Ukraine.
When it comes to NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, it is absolutely shameful to violate such an agreement, and there is plenty of documented proof regarding it, even if it was just a verbal agreement. But it is not exactly like the Eastern countries were forced to join NATO.
Finally, who the hell brought Palestine into this, this whataboutism is at the level of Republicans.
who the hell brought Palestine into this, this whataboutism is at the level of Republicans
do you support the invasion of Iraq for the explicit purpose of regime change
Whataboutism: OK when libs do it, dishonest as all hell for anyone else!
“Whataboutism” is an utterly nonsensical concept in international relations. Not only is it reasonable to compare like situations and expect similar opinions on similar issues, but that exact analysis is one of the principle sources of (what passes for) international law. If I say something is good when my country does it but bad when another country does it, I’m not trying to uphold any rules, I’m just cheerleading my country, why should I be taken seriously?
Regarding the referendum
It’s fine to be skeptical of referendums, but that does not extend to the western line of “obviously these were sham votes.” A vote is not a sham simply because it happened in a country you don’t like; you need some actual evidence.
And I would guess that Russian intervention should be limited to either sanctions or limited intervention in the Donbass region, not a whole invasion of Ukraine.
Russia tried the diplomatic route for most of a decade. It didn’t work, and as Angela Merkel admitted after the war started, it didn’t work in large part becsuse the west never intended to hold Ukraine to it.
A limited intervention is how this started, too – Russia and Ukraine had a ceasefire negotiated something like a month or two into this, but Boris Johnson and the west spiked it. Russia also appears to be content to sit in the pro-Russia eastern regions and slowly grind away at Ukraine’s ability to fight. They’re not making some all-out push to Kiev.
Just to be clear:
You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with “national security” (what else is a military for after all)
Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens “national security” more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.
Ofc I realize you didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced…
Your reply was much better than mine could ever be, thanks comrade.
Also yeah, it was a pretty bold move to ask if I’d support the invasion of Iraq, since, just like you pointed out, the circumstances were completely different. Russia invaded Ukraine after warning them (and the West) countless times and it’s in no way a war for Imperialism (or that benefits it). As for the invasion of Iraq, it was the complete opposite: An invasion under no threats for the sake of exporting the empire’s Capital.
I was about to reply to this after a busy day, but it seems other comrades have already done it. Also the Palestine thing was because I literally copied my comment from a few weeks ago.
First things first, based on what you just said about the Ukrainian war, do you support the invasion of Iraq for the explicit purpose of regime change (getting rid of Saddam Hussein) (not the bullcrap about weapons of mass destruction).
Regarding the referendum,there were calls for boycotting the elections from people who wanted to remain united (in a way, a bit akin to the referendum of Catalonia in 2017). Thirdly, it still remains extremely suspicious that a new country that allegedly wishes to get international legitimacy would not try to get any international observers, from any country, not even from the “Global South”, China, none at all.
Regarding the Minsk agreements, it appears that there were several violations from both parties, from both sides not committing to the ceasefire for several days, the Ukranians failing to approve the constitutional amendment as mandated per the Minsk agreements, and the failure from both the LPR and DPR to organise the local elections. And I would guess that Russian intervention should be limited to either sanctions or limited intervention in the Donbass region, not a whole invasion of Ukraine.
When it comes to NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, it is absolutely shameful to violate such an agreement, and there is plenty of documented proof regarding it, even if it was just a verbal agreement. But it is not exactly like the Eastern countries were forced to join NATO.
Finally, who the hell brought Palestine into this, this whataboutism is at the level of Republicans.
Yeah this person was never going to listen lmfao smug libs are the absolute worst
Whataboutism: OK when libs do it, dishonest as all hell for anyone else!
“Whataboutism” is an utterly nonsensical concept in international relations. Not only is it reasonable to compare like situations and expect similar opinions on similar issues, but that exact analysis is one of the principle sources of (what passes for) international law. If I say something is good when my country does it but bad when another country does it, I’m not trying to uphold any rules, I’m just cheerleading my country, why should I be taken seriously?
It’s fine to be skeptical of referendums, but that does not extend to the western line of “obviously these were sham votes.” A vote is not a sham simply because it happened in a country you don’t like; you need some actual evidence.
Russia tried the diplomatic route for most of a decade. It didn’t work, and as Angela Merkel admitted after the war started, it didn’t work in large part becsuse the west never intended to hold Ukraine to it.
A limited intervention is how this started, too – Russia and Ukraine had a ceasefire negotiated something like a month or two into this, but Boris Johnson and the west spiked it. Russia also appears to be content to sit in the pro-Russia eastern regions and slowly grind away at Ukraine’s ability to fight. They’re not making some all-out push to Kiev.
Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with “national security” (what else is a military for after all)
Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens “national security” more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.
Ofc I realize you didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced…
Your reply was much better than mine could ever be, thanks comrade.
Also yeah, it was a pretty bold move to ask if I’d support the invasion of Iraq, since, just like you pointed out, the circumstances were completely different. Russia invaded Ukraine after warning them (and the West) countless times and it’s in no way a war for Imperialism (or that benefits it). As for the invasion of Iraq, it was the complete opposite: An invasion under no threats for the sake of exporting the empire’s Capital.
I was about to reply to this after a busy day, but it seems other comrades have already done it. Also the Palestine thing was because I literally copied my comment from a few weeks ago.