…unless they also condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Most European territories serve the USA’s geopolitical goals. Sanctions against Russia right now are part of that. There’s nothing moral about it. It’s simply a service to the USA for being in its sphere of influence. There is nothing, not a single shred of integrity in that.
If you find a territory which sanctions Russia for its crime, and also the USA for its crimes, you can recognise it as a real principled act.
Yeah, but it is good to keep in mind that it also works the other way around: “People who condemn the USA for invading Afghanistan and Iraq are hypocrites unless they also condemn Russia for invading Ukraine.”
The other commenters don’t agree with you, but yes that is completely true. A good outcome would be some kind of precedent, where from now on all invasions result in sanctions.
But of course that’s not what’s happening. The anti-war reaction is not genuine. Any action by the USA/Israel will be supported and any action by Russia will be violently opposed. Actions by China/India etc will be taken on a case-by-case basis - how do they affect the USA’s interests in the region.
I think condemning invasions in general is bad.
I’d be Ukrainian, I would like to join a defensive alliance to protect me against Russia. I am sure you can understand why they wanted to join Nato. By the way, you can read the whole page and you may see why some ex-part of USSR are so scared by Russia that they joined NATO
I think condemning invasions in general is bad.
And who else was going to stop the genocide that Ukraine carried out against ethnic Russians for 8 years? Diplomacy certainly failed, so Russia had no other option left.
And who else was going to destroy chemical weapon in Iraq? Diplomacy certainly failed, so the USA had no other option left. /s
Russia and the USA are imperialist states that do care about people only when it is also in their interest.
Chemical weapons in Iraq clearly didnt exist. Remember Colin Powell presenting washing powder as “chemical weapons” at the UN? That was the only proof ever given. Russia will doubtlessly present proof for its claims once the war is over, and then we can see if it was true.
If Russia joined the war for imperialist reasons, that means they were planning to profit financially. How do they profit if they know that they were going to be sanctioned severely? Its much easier to believe that they were concerned about their security, considering that Ukraine threatened to acquire nuclear weapons just a few days earlier.
There is clearly no genocide.
From Putin himself:
https://sputniknews.com/20220318/putin-main-goal-of-russian-operation-in-ukraine-is-to-set-donbass-free-from-genocide-1093987300.html
This is a civil war, not a genocide. By the way, preventing a genocide is a legitimate reason to ask for an intervention of UN. This is not the path they chose.
On chemical weapons, it is clear today that they “do not exist” but at the time, they were “proof” from the CIA and the Italian secret service that they existed. They were all fake, however, they were several proofs. It was word against word. French for example said chemical weapons existed but there were no production and Iraq agreed to cooperate for their destruction so they were against war. In the end, some old and mostly unusable chemical weapons were found in Iraq. I think we agree on this issue, I just wanted to bring nuance on what you wrote.
They profit way more from Ukraine as a puppet state than as an allied of Europe.
Imperialism is not just a question of money.
You assume that Putin anticipated sanctions. He clearly anticipated some of them but not that much. He also thought that way more Ukrainian would support the invasion (like in Crimea) and that the Ukrainian army would be less prepared and so on. But it is a whole other debate.
They annexed Crimea in 2014. Do you really think that the annexion of a region from a sovereign state is not a clear sign of imperialism ? Furthermore, I find it much easier to believe that Putin wants to submits Ukraine to Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians).
There were 14.000 civilians killed in Donbass by the Kiev regime. As your quote says, “this is what is called a genocide”. And genocide often happens during wartime, so the fact that there was a civil war does not preclude a genocide at all.
So you admit that the chemical weapons claims were invented. Then why was no one punished for those false allegations which resulted in millions of deaths? Why wasnt the CIA dissolved, and reparations paid to the innocent Iraqi people? Is that what you call justice?
I did not state that the situation was fair in Iraq. In fact, I condemn the American invasions. So, I also condemn Russian invasion for the very same reasons.
To come back on the false allegation of Putin that there is a genocide.
I totally agree with you. However, this is not a genocide for two reasons: there is no will to destroy Ethnic Russians of Ukraine and 99.9% of the Ethnic Russians of Donetsk and Luhansk survived this so-called genocide.
I suppose your figures are true, which means 14.000 civilians of Ethnic Russians were killed by the Ukrainian regime. There are more than 6 millions people living living in Donetsk and Luhansk, around 40% are Russians. It means 0.1% of them were killed. To compare, between 60 and 75% of Armenian were killed during the genocide in the first world war, depending of estimations.
Don’t get me wrong: It is a tragedy but it is no genocide.
This war will kill thousands of Ukrainians and Russians for no justifiable reason. Trying to justify it because “NATO imperialism” is just nationalism. I don’t think leftists should accept and repeat such propaganda.
Removed by mod
Sorry but you clearly dont know what you are talking about. A genocide is not defined by the number of people killed, but by its goals. And the goals were clearly to “remove” all ethnic Russians from Ukraine. Luckily that was not achieved, because LDNR militias defeated Ukronazis on the battlefield.
Even Ukrainian TV is openly calling for genocide of Russians at this point. Of course, western media is silent about that. Also, use of the Russian language was banned in Ukraine years ago.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/16/nazi-ukraine-tv-presenter-calls-for-genocide-of-russians/
I agree, the intention is an important part. But the genocide is not the “intention of destruction” but the “intentional destruction”. So the figure are also important. Seen the figure, no genocide has occurred.
However, I continue to think there is no legitimate reason for Putin to invade. If there were Ukraine’s intention to destroy the Russian Ethnic, how do you explain such low mortality if there were a genocide ? It has been 8 years!
Sorry but the video is unrelated. It is released after the invasion. The guy is a POS, tho
deleted by creator
Yes.
I would be glad to listen the answers you have to this questions
The decision to invade Iraq came first. All they had to do was invent some justification, which ended up being “weapons of mass destruction”. So everything went according to plan for u.s. elites.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod