this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
610 points (94.1% liked)

World News

32297 readers
713 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 year ago (14 children)

The comment threads here are weird. Who, in their right mind, would ever support a country like Russia? It's mind blowing.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (12 children)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (59 children)
load more comments (59 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago

Tankies.

I am very smart very-intelligent

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (13 children)

It's not supporting Russia to be critical of one-sided narratives or to call for peace for the sake of minimizing loss of life.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Russia is welcome to GTFO at any time.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

The war was already going on before Russia sent troops in.

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

And that makes it okay for them to escalate it, how?

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

Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn't say it's "okay," but the blame isn't just on their side.

If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I'd like to condemn Russian escalation, but it's a little hard for me to do so if I don't have an answer to that question.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.

Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?

If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (40 children)

Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it's a fair point.

If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".

Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could've be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.

load more comments (40 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Get out of your bubble. The majority of the world supports Russia. It's an uncommon view in Europe/USA, but common everywhere else.

Also, being anti NATO expansion doesn't mean you support Russia. That is a reductive world view.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Regardless of how many despots find Putin's approach appealing, it remains fundamentally wrong.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Who said anything about despots? These are opinions of people, not rulers. Citizens of Africa, Asia, South America have suffered under US hegemony, so they view the Russian State different than you do.

The world isn't as simple as Russia bad, US good.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I think it's bad for thousands of ukrainians to die in war they cannot win, which they do not want to fight, purely so NATO can accomplish some esoteric geopolitical goal, but that's just me shrug-outta-hecks

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Go back to your Fox News, conservative ass

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)