Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
Charap and Radchenko argued that four factors in combination led to failure to achieve agreement. According to them, three factors involved specific stakeholders: the unwillingness of Ukraine’s Western partners to provide security guarantees; Ukrainian public anger at the Bucha atrocities; and Zelenskyy’s increased confidence in a military solution with the failure of the Russian attempt to take over Kyiv. The fourth factor listed by Charap and Radchenko was that solving geopolitical security issues while ignoring immediate peace processes for detailed security issues such as humanitarian corridors, ceasefirea, and the withdrawal of military forces was overambitious, "aim[ing] too high, too soon
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-put war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
Charap and Radchenko argued that four factors in combination led to failure to achieve agreement. According to them, three factors involved specific stakeholders: the unwillingness of Ukraine’s Western partners to provide security guarantees; Ukrainian public anger at the Bucha atrocities; and Zelenskyy’s increased confidence in a military solution with the failure of the Russian attempt to take over Kyiv. The fourth factor listed by Charap and Radchenko was that solving geopolitical security issues while ignoring immediate peace processes for detailed security issues such as humanitarian corridors, ceasefirea, and the withdrawal of military forces was overambitious, "aim[ing] too high, too soon
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-out war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
It doesn’t make it right, they were wrong to violate the international border back in 2014 to begin with, but you could wipe out whole Ukrainian generations ala WWI, and they’re not going to retake what Russia has now. You’re spilling blood and treasure for nothing, like every US foreign misadventure of my lifetime instead of coming to terms with an unfortunate reality.
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but it’s just not an argument against imperialism. If anything it’s an argument for multi-polarity, but even then I don’t think it’s the kind of multipolarity leftists are looking for.
I’m speaking to the terms the neolibs understand, nationalist victory, borders on a map, blood, and most importantly, money. Although, if we’re getting into opinions about rhetorical efficacy, and I truly don’t mean offense by this, I’m just talking in general, I think the term “imperialism” comes across as haughty and doesn’t really speak to the moment, in which it’s all very imperialistic I 100% grant you, but, and this is just my opinion and I’m not a political scientist – to say “imperialism” as such is just… it strikes me as of an earlier era. While it’s important to respect our past (I literally cry for “Solidarity Forever”) I feel like what the neolibs lack, and where their weakness is, is the connection to humanity, which they have completely lost (Thus the “the economy is good, why aren’t you grateful, idiot!” platform of the Biden admin) and I think language like “imperialism” makes people either roll their eyes because they’ve heard it before or roll their eyes because they don’t find in relevant to their material condition in a neoliberal world where your interactions are almost exclusively with private actors, even on the state’s behalf in neocolonial contexts.
I’m not sure ‘might makes right’ is the anti-imperial argument you’re looking for here.
lmao, yet it’s the argument that all of your comrades resort to with regards to the Ukrainian situation.
At least it’s not ‘we’ll give you the means to destroy yourself in service of hurting Russia’ like all of your western buddies like arguing.
“Defending yourself against genocide is actually destroying yourself”
Want to remind me how this ISN’T a might makes right argument, the kind of which you supposedly were against just one comment ago?
You can’t stay consistent for a single comment. Unbelievable. But anything to simp for fascists, I guess. I’m sorry, ‘Anti-Imperialist Fascists’.
Supplying a nation of 38 million with weapons against a nation of 144 million doesn’t ensure them victory against Russia.
If the west genuinely wanted to prevent a genocide they would be supplying them with personnel, too. By drawing out the conflict without giving them a way out of attrition more Ukrainians will die.
The west cares more about hurting Russia than they do about Ukrainian lives.
Ah, yes, when Ukraine has explicitly refused the possibility of Western personnel fighting the war on their behalf. I’m so glad to see that the wishes of the democratically elected Ukrainian government deserve to be discarded, in your view, in exchange for a distinctly paternalist interventionism. Since that’s no longer popular in the West, it’s not going to happen.
Obviously, since intervening ourselves isn’t an option, the only correct thing to do is to let the stronger country win. But it’s not might makes right! It’s only might makes right when you disagree with it, right?
Ukraine had a treaty they were ready to accept when the west objected to it and pushed them to push the effort forward.
‘Let the stronger country win’ is a contradiction, either they are the stronger country and they will won, or it isn’t just Ukraine fighting it and Russia isn’t the stronger opponent.
The west wants to not get involved in the war but they don’t want Russia to win, that’s the definition of wating your cake and having it to.
lmao, this misinformation again. You keep repeating the talking points you hear Putin make when Tucker Carlson is interviewing him. You’re no different than any other right-wing chud other than a coat of red paint.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-put war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
I’m too cheap to pay for access to the article, but they were close to an agreement. Here’s the summary as I heard it (summarized from wiki)
But whatever you’d like to believe. You’ve only so far expressed your desire for Russia to lose and haven’t alluded to any concessions you’d find acceptable, so I have to assume you’re happy with all-out war until Ukraine wins or loses completely
It doesn’t make it right, they were wrong to violate the international border back in 2014 to begin with, but you could wipe out whole Ukrainian generations ala WWI, and they’re not going to retake what Russia has now. You’re spilling blood and treasure for nothing, like every US foreign misadventure of my lifetime instead of coming to terms with an unfortunate reality.
I’m just pointing out the argumentative failure.
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but it’s just not an argument against imperialism. If anything it’s an argument for multi-polarity, but even then I don’t think it’s the kind of multipolarity leftists are looking for.
I’m speaking to the terms the neolibs understand, nationalist victory, borders on a map, blood, and most importantly, money. Although, if we’re getting into opinions about rhetorical efficacy, and I truly don’t mean offense by this, I’m just talking in general, I think the term “imperialism” comes across as haughty and doesn’t really speak to the moment, in which it’s all very imperialistic I 100% grant you, but, and this is just my opinion and I’m not a political scientist – to say “imperialism” as such is just… it strikes me as of an earlier era. While it’s important to respect our past (I literally cry for “Solidarity Forever”) I feel like what the neolibs lack, and where their weakness is, is the connection to humanity, which they have completely lost (Thus the “the economy is good, why aren’t you grateful, idiot!” platform of the Biden admin) and I think language like “imperialism” makes people either roll their eyes because they’ve heard it before or roll their eyes because they don’t find in relevant to their material condition in a neoliberal world where your interactions are almost exclusively with private actors, even on the state’s behalf in neocolonial contexts.