Fuck Ukrainian Azov Nazis and fuck anyone who defends them
Fuck Ukrainian Azov Nazis and fuck anyone who defends them
Five years after the Maidan uprising, anti-Semitism and fascist-inflected ultranationalism are rampant.
Here's how Ukraine was being reported by the West before the war.
Today, increasing reports of far-right violence, ultranationalism, and erosion of basic freedoms are giving the lie to the West’s initial euphoria. There are neo-Nazi pogroms against the Roma, rampant attacks on feminists and LGBT groups, book bans, and state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators.
These stories of Ukraine’s dark nationalism aren’t coming out of Moscow; they’re being filed by Western media, including US-funded Radio Free Europe (RFE); Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center; and watchdogs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House, which issued a joint report warning that Kiev is losing the monopoly on the use of force in the country as far-right gangs operate with impunity.
Five years after Maidan, the beacon of democracy is looking more like a torchlight march. A neo-Nazi battalion in the heart of Europe
If you whitewash NAZI POGROMS just because you want to beat Russia, fuck you. Siding with far-right fascists to defeat far-right fascists doesn't make you the good guy. There is no lesser of two evils here.
If you dismiss any criticism of Ukraine as Russian propaganda, you might want to ask why the rest of the world, including the West, was concerned about Nazism in the area and then suddenly changed their tune only after the war started.
We should be getting both sides into peace negotiations, not prolonging the bloodshed and providing Nazis with illegal cluster bombs
You're viewing a single thread.
I often see criticism of Ukraine lumped in with Russian justifications for invasion, in which case, the war is also warping your views.
providing Nazis with illegal cluster bombs
The US got heat from other supporters of Ukraine for that even. Russia is also using them. Further cause to support peace negotiations.
Especially because the actual reason Russia invaded wasn't over any concern about ethnic Russians in Ukraine (that's literally one of the oldest bullshit excuses for war) was to prevent NATO from being on it's borders, and now Finland and Sweden have joined, so Russia's already lost the geopolitical battle. All they're fighting for now is dirt.
I often see libs consider the most luke warm criticism of Ukraine or NATO as being support for Russia. It sucks.
Russia portrays its "military operation" as being because of common and well known issues that the left has with NATO, but it was their invasion that tipped public opinion in Finland and Sweden to apply to join, so Russia has already lost in that respect.
oh yeah, so called "public opinion" is definitely crucial to liberal democracy and not just easily shaped by bourgeois media when class interests dictate. great analysis, very map-coloring brain. meanwhile you ignore things like Zelensky talking about leaving the Budapest memorandum or the imminent large-scale offensive against DPR and LPR just prior to the invasion
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/02/the-buildup-to-war-in-ukraine-february-13-2022.html series continues until Feb 22
The Baltics have been in NATO since 2004, so Russia already had NATO on its border. Plus Poland on Belarus's border. It's not about having NATO on their border in general, it's about having NATO in Ukraine specifically. Finland and Sweden joining means nothing.
But Ukrainian bombing of the Donbass absolutely was a factor as well. For 8 years Russia tried the diplomatic route to get them to stop, but despite signing agreements, Ukraine just ignored them and kept bombing anyway.
The Baltics have been in NATO since 2004
The baltic route to invading Russia is a lot more difficult than the Ukrainian route. Ukraine was always the "red line" for them because of the topography, and the closeness to moscow. Also they were pissed when the baltics joined. The brits declassified that informal promises were made to Gorbachev (ugh....) to not expand NATO eastward in March 1991 if he dissolved the USSR. Of course these informal promises weren't in writing and were never kept. the USA denied they were ever made, but luckily the brits declassified
Really no one should be shocked that an informal promise wasn't honored. If a legally binding treaty can still be ignored by a sovereign power, informal promises are always worthless and no one should be pointing to them and going "but they promised!"
Yes. Gorbachev was a clown who got clowned upon. Still, I think it's worth mentioning, because it reveals that the West was always willing to be deceptive about NATO expansion, and what the role of NATO actually is (i.e. it is not a "defensive" alliance but a reactionary alliance of imperial core countries to protect the superprofits afforded by imperialism and neocolonialism)
I mean, it is literally a defensive alliance if only because if one country is attacked, the others are legally obliged to treat it as an attack on them. It is then also an alliance of Imperial core countries (it was after all, founded in response to the Warsaw Pact).
It is indeed worth mentioning, but I don't think it's worth framing it as some sort of public promise that was walked back.
It is then also an alliance of Imperial core countries (it was after all, founded in response to the Warsaw Pact).
It was NOT founded in response to the Warsaw pact. NATO was formed in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was founded in 1955. The Warsaw pact was founded in response to NATO. NATO was building up West Germany economically less than 10 years after the fucking holocaust. The Soviet Union tried to join NATO in 1954 and was told "no, you aren't democratic enough." But they had no problem letting West Germany in while integrating "former" nazis like Adolf Heusinger into their command structure.
I mean, it is literally a defensive alliance if only because if one country is attacked, the others are legally obliged to treat it as an attack on them
less than a third of NATO countries were admitted to NATO through some kind of democratic referendum. It was almost always the unilateral decision of the given country's bourgeois class, rather than something the people themselves were consulted on. In the cases where democratic referendums were held, it was often in countries that had just been balkanized (former Yugoslav countries, for example), or countries that were just at the outskirts of NATO and were therefore pressured geopolitically into choosing whose "sphere of influence" they were under: Russian federation, or USA. When a nation is compelled under duress to pick sides like that, and a class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is the one that usually ends up making the decisions, I doubt the alliance can reasonably be called "defensive." Its borders keep expanding to encircle and balkanize nations whose main "crime" was being socialist Once Upon A Time. NATO expansion is marching us towards WW3. It is an expansionist and aggressive alliance that merely uses Article 5 to appear defensive and Democratic, while trying its hardest to constantly provoke wars and lay claim to natural resources.
Is the following something a "defensive" alliance does?
It's true tbh, Yeltsin was an absolute dumbass to trust Bill Clinton without getting it in writing.
it’s about having NATO in Ukraine specifically.
They're only upset about the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO because of the fact that the Baltics were able to join. If Putin had amassed enough political capital and military strength earlier, they probably would have intervened militarily there before they could join too.
For 8 years Russia tried the diplomatic route to get them to stop, but despite signing agreements, Ukraine just ignored them and kept bombing anyway.
Nothing is so one-sided. It's not like portions of Ukraine still under Ukrainian control and not separatist control weren't also getting bombed in turn. You could see it from Google Maps back in like, 2018. It's not like the damage magically ended at the trenches and was only on the side controlled by the separatists.
I mean if you're getting shelled from enemy territory then the way you stop it is by shooting at the enemy artillery in enemy territory. Do you not support the right of Ukrainians in Donbas to defend themselves?
They were fighting against the wholesome Banderite Nazi government of Ukraine. There is no sympathy for them.
it's factual the separatists did cease-fire violations, we shouldn't sweep inconvenient facts aside & tarring everyone pointing them out as banderites. the rhetoric around here is getting way too dogmatic to start denialism because it slightly complicates the overall narrative of NATO aggression
no reasonable person would ever think a dozen LPR guys taking some potshots at ukrainian positions justifies NATO arming neonazis but putting our fingers in our ears about separatist/russian misbehavior makes us look like idiots
Sure, but the majority of cease-fire violations on the separatist side were in response to being attacked by Kyiv military or paramilitary forces. It doesn't count as breaking a ceasefire if the other side hasn't ceased fire.
Do you not support the rest of Ukraine's? And what about all the people in the Donbass that relocated to parts of Ukraine still under control of Kyiv? After the separatists took power there many people went to western Ukraine. Do those people not have a right to one day return to their homes?
Ukraine could have stopped their war against Donbas at any time. In fact they were legally obligated to according to the Minsk agreements that they signed. Ukraine had no legal or moral right to continue attacking Donbas after they signed a ceasefire.
Not a lot of people went to western Ukraine. Most people went to either Russia or other parts of eastern Ukraine. Western Ukraine is pretty far away from the conflict.
Do you think only Ukraine violated the agreement? Why is on them to honor it when the rebels weren't?
People in the political minority in Eastern Ukraine went to Western Ukraine so they'd be in the majority, in the period between the ouster of the Kremlin-prefered leadership in Kyiv and the rebels getting organized. This was in the news back in like 2014, so it's likely been buried in the more prevalent discussions about the Minsk agreements and the subsequent invasion of the wider country.
With all ceasefires, both sides claim that the other violated it. I have no reason to give the Donbas separatists the benefit of the doubt anymore than I do Ukraine. It's not like either side is openly communist, Russia isn't some left wing workers state anymore, it's not like they're trying to reverse the economic and political changes of 1991, only the borders.
For a self-styled Marxist, you don't seem to appreciate the idea of states being historically progressive or reactionary beyond "is it socialist or not?" Starting in 2014, Ukraine started moving in the direction of ethnonationalist policy. Palestine isn't socialist, but I think socialists usually understand that if they are going to give one side benefit of the doubt, it's the insurgency trying to resist the supremacist military trying to dominate them.
The US got heat from other supporters of Ukraine for that even.
Pfft, as if. Oh the Europeans always do that. They'll whine on TV about how this War is unfair, or that french colony should be freed. Then they'll send volunteers to help with Iraq and Afghanistan. They are just as bloodthirsty, but they are cowards about it.
The US got heat from other supporters of Ukraine for that even.
Ah yes, I'm sure that's why
sent exactly 1,488 panzer tanks to 
Must just be a coincidence that white supremacists and nazis all love those numbers
14 types of one tank and then 88 types of another tank
I don't think Germany's malfunctioning military even has 1488 ready to deploy tanks in total lol
thanks for the correctionOK that sounds way more reasonable than what I said but I'm just gonna leave what I said because the underlying point still stands
all I was referring to was the fact that they all literally criticized the move, in typical diplomatic hand-wringing ways. Say anything about other countries' military aid, it doesn't change that they still issued statements, it just makes them hypocrites (big shock).
Also, they sent 14 of one kind of tank and 88 Panzers, Germany doesn't even have a thousand tanks in its possession.
Like a few years ago when the DHS or whoever reported that they had "lost" 1,488 migrant children from our concentration camps
oil and wheat are just “dirt”? millions of civilians who were bombed by the Ukrainian government for the past decade are “dirt”? even if it is just “dirt”, its dirt that provides the perfect launching ground for a land invasion of Russia. NATO is the Nazi Arming Terrorist Organization and anyone fighting against them will have critical support from most of the world (no, the west is not all that exists; most of the world is or has been colonized by the west)
That's a very one-sided view of affairs though, it's not like the Ukrainian govt was bombing them for fun, it was a war. Civilians died on both sides-that doesn't excuse it, but it certainly does not justify an invasion!
The invasion has achieved the exact opposite of what the Russian leadership wanted.
Putin feared Ukraine aligning with NATO, and this invasion has drawn them vastly closer and has deepened cooperation more than it ever would have been otherwise.
Putin opposed the existence of an independent Ukrainian national identity, yet this war has solidified and reified it like nothing else ever could, among both Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
Putin thought he had the support of the east, yet this invasion has wiped out any sympathy Russian-speakers might have had for the Russian state before.
Putin (falsely) used 'Denazification' as a justification for the war, yet this war and Russian actions in 2014 have VASTLY empowered the far-right, giving them disproportionate power relative to their support base.
Putin claimed it was to protect people in Donbass from 'genocide' (pfft'), yet now they have been subjected to far worse horrors than in the 2014-2022 period (not to mention the fact Russian actions against Ukrainian civilians have been far worse than anything that occurred in 2014-2022).
The invasion is completely ridiculous and unjustified + strategically idiotic, based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground from the Russian leadership, which has become increasingly personalist and isolated from reality since COVID.
This is not just a war against NATO, and that is a poor way of framing things. It is, above all, a war against the Ukrainian state and, given the identity-denying and annexationist policies of the Russian leadership, against a great majority of the Ukrainian people, Russian and Ukrainian speaking alike (all data shows the vast majority of Russian-speaking Ukrainians oppose the invasion and support the war effort). Why some people are flabbergasted that a national self-defence effort has inspired so much support among Ukrainians is mystifying to me. Of course they're not going to surrender, what do you think is going to happen and what do you think is viable? Ukraine and Ukrainians are not just chess pieces on a board in Russia-NATO competition, they are millions of real people whose lives have now been RUINED because of the war. It is basic humanity. All people have the right to self-determination and self-defence against an aggressor, and that is not in contradiction with opposing the far-right elements the Russian invasion has empowered.
You’ve got it backwards. The far right elements were deliberately sowed to induce instability on Russia’s borders, and has been so since before and after the Cold War.
Check out Operation Bloodstone. Check out Operation AERODYNAMIC. Check out Prolog. These are all declassified information detailing their activities in Ukraine and the role in destabilizing Russia both externally and internally.
The reason is quite simple actually: Russia’s increasingly close relationship with the EU (especially Germany) as a raw material supplier will eventually pull the EU out of the US sphere. Energy sovereignty has always been a key issue for Europe. When Saddam tried to sell oil in euro, Iraq was immediately invaded. Then Russia began to sell gas in euro, setting the stage for Europe to gain its energy sovereignty.
Thus, Maidan had to happen. The war in Ukraine has to happen. Nordstream bombing had to happen. All to prevent the vassal states from defecting and undermining US hegemony in the region.
No matter who is in charge in Russia, a left wing government or a right wing government, they all have to face the same problem. Putin tried to appease to the West for nearly a decade, only to see the US keep sending military arms to Ukraine openly. If he had been an even bigger idiot he might even wait until Ukraine to be fully armed by NATO and by then it would have been a far worse humanitarian crisis. And then you’d be calling him an idiot for trying to appease the West and ignoring the military buildup in Ukraine.
That's a very one-sided view of affairs though, it's not like the Ukrainian govt was bombing them for fun, it was a war. Civilians died on both sides-that doesn't excuse it, but it certainly does not justify an invasion!
show me where Russians attacked Ukrainian civilians from 2015-2021 (dont show me Russia funding separatists as evidence, the DPR and LPR have the right to defend their right to self determination). you can say “it was a war” all you want, it doesnt change the fact that there was a ceasefire agreement that was consistently violated by Ukraine.
The invasion has achieved the exact opposite of what the Russian leadership wanted.
Putin feared Ukraine aligning with NATO, and this invasion has drawn them vastly closer and has deepened cooperation more than it ever would have been otherwise.
Putin opposed the existence of an independent Ukrainian national identity, yet this war has solidified and reified it like nothing else ever could, among both Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
what do you think Russian leadership wanted? bc it looks like the DPR and LPR, as well as most of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, are occupied by Russia. and Zelenskyyy was supposed to be the “peace and neutrality” candidate, yet he was working towards joining NATO. the Ukrainians west of the Dnieper were already primed to join NATO, the war didnt change anything.
and what are those bs identity politics abt “Ukrainian national identity”? lets focus on material reality, not these flimsy ideas invented to justify imperialism and ur guesses on what Putin thinks abt them
Putin thought he had the support of the east, yet this invasion has wiped out any sympathy Russian-speakers might have had for the Russian state before.
yummy western propaganda!!
Putin (falsely) used 'Denazification' as a justification for the war, yet this war and Russian actions in 2014 have VASTLY empowered the far-right, giving them disproportionate power relative to their support base.
Putin claimed it was to protect people in Donbass from 'genocide' (pfft'), yet now they have been subjected to far worse horrors than in the 2014-2022 period (not to mention the fact Russian actions against Ukrainian civilians have been far worse than anything that occurred in 2014-2022).
no, Ukraine and the west have empowered (and armed) nazis for 90 years! and now you rely more on western propaganda and all their unfounded claims of atrocities. let’s focus on what we have proof for— the Ukrainian use of cluster munitions against civilians in the Donbas, Ukrainian pogroms and segregation against the Roma people, and state suppression of the Russian language. and what is wrong with you saying “pffft” regarding genocidal actions?
The invasion is completely ridiculous and unjustified + strategically idiotic, based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground from the Russian leadership, which has become increasingly personalist and isolated from reality since COVID.
lol you are the one isolated from reality. the world sees what the west is blind to. when the fighting is over and Russia still governs 4 previously Ukrainian oblasts, come here again and say the invasion is “strategically idiotic”, it will be funnier then.
this IS a war against NATO. and it was started by NATO. and it can be ended by NATO right now— Russia is open to peace negotiations
dont show me Russia funding separatists as evidence, the DPR and LPR have the right to defend their right to self determination
this is a ridiculous double standard. if we're going to talk about NATO pulling the strings of Ukraine, we don't get to pretend the separatists were authentic grassroots movements unaffected by Russian military involvement in their affairs. and whether or not you 'count' the separatists as russian-proxy, they did kill civilians. the ceasefire & it's breaking are still pertinent details but it's wrong to characterize the warfare as one-sided
yet now they have been subjected to far worse horrors than in the 2014-2022 period
this is true and obvious, it's a much larger and more intense war. western propaganda does emphasis on russia's crimes, denies ukraines, & spins tales of russia's 'genocidal' intentions, but the wide scale suffering & thousands of civilian deaths are real. it's why the war needs to end as quickly as possible.
im not denying separatists were influenced by Russia, but sending arms to a separatist group is nothing compared to directly attacking civilian centers. is a third party sending weapons to Hamas comparable to the actions of Israel? should we condemn those who send weapons to Houthi rebels?
a subjective assessment is “true and obvious”? no western spin will change the fact that this war is one of western expansion and the people of the Donbas were facing ethnic cleansing from Ukraine. the war could end today if Ukraine and NATO were willing to negotiate reasonably.
ah sorry i had no idea i have to spell out exact numbers of combatants, casualties, displaced persons, and length/area of combat zones or it's "subjective". don't be obtuse, this isn't western spin to say more people are getting hurt in the expanded war than were in the Donbass.
when the separatists you arm & operate your military alongside hit a civilian target with those weapons you do have a measure of culpability. just like NATO has responsibility for the weapons they've given ukriane.
its not abt numbers. on one hand is the ethnic cleansing of civilians during an agreed upon ceasefire, on the other is a war between two modern armies. trying to compare the two is obtuse.
this is not materialist. numbers & scale matters. a murder is not the same as a mass murder. a different legal framework doesn't magically make a many times increase in human suffering and death irrelevant and incomparable to the smaller-scale violence earlier in the same conflict.
we're leftists, right? we agree that social murder is an aspect of capitalist society, but the capitalist legal system does not recognize this. we're capable of separating material effects of policy from their legal definitions. i'd urge you to focus less on the legal character of the war and more on material effects on people. legalism is a tool the ruling class uses that obscures & excuses human suffering in our society. the civilians in the donbass were excused by the ukrainians with legal definitions of traitors or dissidents, as russians who were not part of the state & not deserving protections. i don't accept that and i won't accept fictions about scopes of operation and who is technically aggressing whom, when a kid gets their leg blown off by a mine that is a life permanently changed or erased whichever legalese you slap on it.
its not abt legal framework, its attacks on civilians vs attacks on combatants. numbers dont make these comparable, they are too entirely different
Russia has attacked civilian targets and infrastructure.
"OHCHR verified a total of 9,444 civilian deaths during Russia's invasion of Ukraine as of August 13, 2023. Furthermore, 16,940 people were reported to have been injured"
you're still making a legalistic distinction "attacks on civilians" vs. "attacks on combatants" these attacks on "combatants" clearly contain civilian deaths,
so what actually is the difference to you besides who's doing the murder?e: this is combative, not how i intended it. but i think the fact of civilian deaths emerging from the category of 'attack on combatant' is very destabilizing for using that as a discrete category from 'attack on civilian', is it not?
A measure of culpability, as compared to the bad faith characterization of full-scale offensive war that lib is making.
they are millions of real people whose lives have now been RUINED because of the war.
They're only going to start becoming less ruined once they accept that they have to negotiate.
Yes, of course, a negotiated solution will be necessary. We're in a frozen conflict because the 'meta' of modern warfare is extremely defence heavy, it seems. Once a modern, rich army is entrenched, war-of-manoeuvre is ineffective. You have to grind them down to a pulp before you yourself are turned to dust. Neither side has the capabilities to make serious gains anymore, at least for now, and neither are visibly close to any real exhaustion.
The problem is the Ukrainian state, even if its officials wanted to negotiate, has this and that structural liability preventing it from viably doing so. A large base of the population who still take a maximalist position, a strong element of the far-right in the military that could take over and kill Zelensky for being a Russian-speaking Jew traitor if he negotiates seriously, an economy and military becoming increasingly integrated into western capital circuits whose state leadership is pushing you to fight on (and you want to), and the fact that Russia itself is not offering any meaningful concessions whatsoever anymore.
Peace is a long way off. It's not easy to change any of these factors, and it'll be a while before the mutually hurting stalemate starts to change peoples' minds because the cost of non-victory is so high for both the Russian and Ukrainian leadership, and for large chunks of the Ukrainian population for whom their very national identity and being is torn asunder, given the massive importance of territory to all national mythologies.
It is sad but I do not see any real chance of peace even if Zelensky woke up tomorrow and wanted it more than anything in the world.
it's not like the Ukrainian govt was bombing them for fun, it was a war. Civilians died on both sides-that doesn't excuse it, but it certainly does not justify an invasion!
I don't think separatists were fighting for fun but rather because they had no other means of seceding from a country that clearly only wanted their land and not them. I also struggle to imagine that the civilian deaths on the Ukraine side during the Civil War were a tenth as many as the civilian deaths in Donbas, because the dynamic of the war was principally one of aggression towards Donbas (just as the dynamic of the invasion is principally one of aggression towards Ukraine), whatever one might say about the justification of the aggression or the circumstances of it.
Sure. but that's a lot of dead people to defend the principle of not letting Russia get what they want. We could have said "fine, we won't expand NATO" and either Russia would have backed down or been forced to abandon that "pretense". But we didn't. We got into this dick measuring contest of "Ukraine can join if they want to 😤" and provoked a war. Which we wanted, in order to fight Russia without using American troops. But it's completely to the detriment of citizens in both Ukraine and Russia.
Russia could have stuck with the accepted modern method of Imperialism though, wherein you don't invade countries with armies but instead you use soft power and economic integration. That's what the US was trying to do even in Russia, what with how American Hollywood movies and TV shows being released there and American companies moving in there. It was supposed to change Russian public opinion and enable the subordination of Russian capital to Western capital but Putin was able to co-opt Russian capitalism so when all the Western companies like McDonald's left, there was domestic alternatives.
Problem was the west was more succesful in Ukraine and other former Soviet states, and the Russians losing at that method as Western Ukrainians looked at the EU more and more, feeling culturally closer to Poland than Russia.
We can go round and round over past decisions that are the "real" culprit for war in Ukraine but it won't stop the fighting today. Sure, Ukraine could've surrendered in the first 24 hours and saved lives, but historically speaking, occupations also result in loss of life as the people who didn't want to be part of Russia would still be Ukraine and wouldn't just accept a Moscow-aligned Kyiv government.
The fighting would also stop if Russian troops turned around and went back to Russia, but I think some people are more interested in hurting US foreign policy than they are in peace.
You are unsurprisingly distorting the past. Ukraine circa 2014 had two offers on the table for economic integration, one with the EU and one with Russia. The EU deal demanded the exclusion of Russia, the Russian deal did not demand exclusion of the EU. The sitting President chose the Russian deal, and then there was a west-backed coup that put him out of office and put in someone who would take the EU deal.
The "game" was one that Russia was not allowed to succeed at.
Russia could have stuck with the accepted modern method of Imperialism though, wherein you don't invade countries with armies but instead you use soft power and economic integration.
If you're talking about neocolonialism, neocolonialism still requires boots on the ground. Why do you think AFRICOM has military bases throughout Africa or why jihadist separatist groups like Boko Haram curiously always align with the strategic goals of the US state department? There were Danish troops rampaging around Mali before post-coup Mali told the Danes to fuck off back to Scandinavia. Just because Western troops were "invited" to those countries by neocolonial puppets doesn't mean they don't represent just another form of foreign occupation. At least when Russia invaded Ukraine, you could argue that Russia was trying to safeguard the Russian minority. Not sure what kind of excuse you could pull for French troops in "ex" French colony Niger (despite the coup, French troops are still in Niger).
The US got heat from other supporters of Ukraine for that even
Getting heat doesn't matter if everyone falls in line anyway.
concern about ethnic Russians in Ukraine
Why do you consider this bullshit, exactly? Do you disagree that russians in eastern ukraine were treated unfairly?
It's the excuse used every time a country wants to claim dirt from another one, at least historically. Is that all it takes to justify a war now?
Would you be defending France if they invaded Belgium in order to protect French-speakers? Mexicans and other Spanish speakers are threatened in the United States, does that mean Mexico is entitled to invade Texas and Florida?
The idea that Russia has any right to protect anyone besides its own citizens in its own borders is based on the idea that Ukraine is "meant" to be in Russia's sphere of influence, but I don't believe in spheres of influence.
Mexicans and other Spanish speakers are threatened in the United States, does that mean Mexico is entitled to invade Texas and Florida?
If Mexico could win that conflict, unequivocally yes I would support them. The US has repeatedly committed kidnappings, forced sterilization, and summary executions against those populations. The US government should be destroyed, but even just those state governments being destroyed would be great.
The idea that Russia has any right to protect anyone besides its own citizens in its own borders is based on the idea that Ukraine is "meant" to be in Russia's sphere of influence, but I don't believe in spheres of influence.
No, the idea is that countries are not people, people are people. If a country is going to fuck people over and those people want a specific other country to intervene, the people running that other country are free to intervene. Who gives a shit about what a federal government says about a region that deservedly hates it?