• AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think Americans in general don’t see it as a difficult choice to support Ukraine

    Politicians find it difficult because Republicans are pro-russian, and both parties are heavily aligned with Israel. So Ukraines the only one really seeing any push back.

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Fuck that, isreal is a terrorist state. Anyone voting for funding isreal is voting against human rights.

    • FrostKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Honestly surprised that I hear this so much. For context, I am not a Republican, so I’m not defending them, but every Republican I’ve talked to has been anti Russia to the max. They might disagree on the amount of money that we send Ukraine (“Why are we sending billions over there when we can’t even figure out our own country” comes up a lot) but I’ve never heard a single one say anything in the support of Russia. It’s so confusing when I hear people say conservatives are pro-Russia… Different ecosystems I guess

      • Metype @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I do believe they were referring quite specifically to the politicians, since on every side it seems politicians are disconnected from their constituents and do things those constituents absolutely wouldn’t (this isn’t some bizarre both-sides argument btw, just general frustration at the state of things)

        • FrostKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ah, that would explain it. I have a bad habit of assuming people mean people, and I like ignoring that politicians exist :p

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well the leader of one side campaigned in 2016 on the promise of carpet bombing the Middle East and they side with Russia

  • Swuden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I find it funny that Americans (esp. Republicans) who love to «win» at all things, would be fine to allow Russia to win against the west in Ukraine. I think if they decide to stay on their isolationist path, Lavrov’s propaganda from earlier in the week will come true, and the US will seize to be a superpower. «Greatest country in the world»? Starting to look pretty weak to me.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      The US is speed running the Empire game. They blitzed through the early game, beat a super power, became the dominant military force in the world, dominated in culture, and are now seeing how fast they can decline before the entire country implodes on itself.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    These two conflicts have a lot of points of views. In russia ukraine its a bit easier because russia attacked ukriane so its pretty clear that russia is the “evil”. But with israel and gaza a lot of people confuse palestinians with hamas and israeli people with the israeli government. Ad for why ukraine supports israel when they are much closer to gaza i think its because they really need the us and eu to help so they didnt even have an option.

  • S_204@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not a tough choice, send aid to Israel, stop jihadists from spreading their terror through the West.

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    Love to save ukrainian children by dragging the war on, making it deadlier and deadlier.

    As Obama said, “Russia will always have escalatory dominance in the region”

    • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      A war with better armed Ukraine would be shorter.

      We could make Russian dominance in the region history, just like the myth of their military competence is history.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        A war with better armed Ukraine would be shorter.

        We could make Russian dominance in the region history, just like the myth of their military competence is history.

        The “west” is running out of stockpiled munitions at this point.

        As Obama said, Russia will always have escalatory dominance in Ukraine. The Biden administration is just dragging out a loss.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.

        • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.

          The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.

          As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.

            Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.

            Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:

            The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.

            The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.

            Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.

            • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.

              False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.

              Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.

              Western leaders? Name them.

              The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.

              It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.

              Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.

              Because Russia attacked them.

              Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.

              If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.

              Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.

              You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                10 months ago

                False equivalence.

                It’s not.

                Because Russia attacked them.

                No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.

                It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.

                I see you have problems with reading comprehension.

                If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.

                If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.

                Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.

                That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.

                You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.

                Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.

                • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.

                  Russian propaganda talking point.

                  If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.

                  Euromaidan was not a coup.

                  That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.

                  Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.

            • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.

              By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.