I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
Just to offer you a perspective on what other people think, not that you asked for it but idk, don’t read if you’re not interested :) I’ll be brief.
America not having their back might bring about a truce treaty, which would stop the war, the bombs, the people getting killed. I think across the political spectrum from “tankies” to Trump supporters and everything in between, lots of people are hoping for a fast peaceful outcome.
Your willingness to give land that isn’t yours away is noted.
It’s not my land to give, it just seems to me that trying to take it back doesn’t work, and I question the motives of western states and if they genuinely believe in victory, or if they’re just fueling the war to weaken their enemy.
It’s not yours to give and yet you think giving it away is a solution. So I repeat my previous post.
Also, maybe you should care less about the motives of the people helping the victim and more about the victim.
We’re talking about genocide here.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/in-ukraines-genocide-case-against-russia-the-uns-top-court-says-it-has-jurisdiction
Would you feel the same way about Israel and Palestinian territory? Taking it back hasn’t worked and the motives of those aiding Palestinians aren’t pure, so let Israel have their way?
I don’t think giving it away is a solution. It was already taken, by force. The question is, can it be taken back, and at what cost?
In what way am I not caring about the victim in this case? I think you’re assuming I’m not taking this seriously, or that I think Ukrainians deserved it, or shit like that. But that’s not the case at all.
And the analogy for the Palestinian genocide would be like so: should the west arm palestinians so they can defend themselves? And the answer imo would be no. They would still fail to defend themselves against such a strong adversary, and it would only aggravate the conflict.
Sounds like you’re saying Israel should just get to keep what they’ve taken by force too.
Nope. And Russia shouldn’t get to keep what they’ve taken by force either. But it’s not like we could give weapons to those palestinian children and they’d be able to turn this conflict around. That’s an extreme example of this problem. Ofc Ukraine is much more developed, and has trained soldiers and stuff…
Anyway as I said before, the argument remains - are the west fueling a proxy war at Ukraine’s expense, or are they helping them win? Maybe one day we’ll find out.
You’re simultaneously saying Russia should get to keep what it’s taken in Ukraine and that it shouldn’t. Which is it?
I’m not saying they should get to keep it, I’m questioning whether prolonging the war will make a difference in the matter.