I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
It’s like their version of STOP RESISTING.
My Mom said Russia had to attack Ukraine, because they were trying to join NATO. I asked why she thinks Ukraine was trying to join NATO. I’m still digging for a bedrock of logic.
Part of the problem with game theory and finding a “bedrock of logic” is that game theoretical analysis is often recursive. It’s not a stack of prepositions and conclusions; it’s often a loop. Sort of like a resonance structure. I’ve got my gun aimed at you because your gun is aimed at me because my gun is aimed at you … recursively forever.
My understanding is that the US/NATO and the USSR/Russia, ie the two sides of the Cold War, have maintained a sense of peace and security by maintaining a buffer between the two sides. A buffer of distance, which is relevant because it relates to the time it takes nuclear weapons to travel from one adversarial territory to the other.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.
The public declaration (by Kamala Harris, incidentally) that Ukraine would join NATO is a violation of a promise made by Reagan that NATO would not extend to the border of Russia.
It’s similar to the USSR’s attempt to install nuclear missiles in Cuba, in the sense that it’s simply too close.
That’s my understanding of the motivation behind Russia’s invasion. I’m quite new to all this though.
So it’s less like “Stop resisting!” and more like “Drop the gun!”
My suspicion is that MAD overall is diminishing in its power to stabilize the world militarily, as a result of new military technologies coming into play (space-based weapons, drones, AI, hypersonic missiles, iron dome scenarios) as well as more and more nuclear powers coming online, and the increasing probability of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors.
And finally there’s China’s overall rise toward the role of hegemonic power.
The Cold War basically organized itself (and hence organized the influences that minimized military action) around two major powers. Now there’s a third major power that’s rapidly accelerating toward becoming the major power. It’s changing all the equations that balanced out in the 1970s, 80s, etc.
The reason Ukraine wanted to join NATO is that Russia already had occupied Crimea and part of Georgia before. All that after Ukraine gave up all the nukes they still had from USSR times. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia before the occupation of Crimea.
Distance is really not much of a factor any more, and hasn’t been for a long time. Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg can already be reached by submarine launched cruise missiles in less than 15 minutes (conservative estimate). And let’s face it, with MAD being a thing, any kind of nuclear strike is likely to escalate into all-out nuclear annihilation, anyway. This makes any attempt at overwhelming the opponent a losing proposition. So in that sense nothing has changed since, oh, the mid-1970s?
Then there is the argument that Russia doesn’t want a long shared border with NATO. Guess what, their aggression has caused Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which has only added to their shared border with NATO. That they already had with Poland and the Baltic states (there is no treaty nor official document prohibiting NATO expansion).
And finally, how hard is it to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance? It is neither politically geared to nor militarily capable of mounting a conquest of Russia. The fact that so many of Russia’s neighbors are eager to join the alliance should be a pretty strong hint as to why it needs to exist in the first place. It is Russia that cannot be trusted, not NATO. And you can’t make your neighbor “drop the gun” in their own house. The Ukrainians were stupid enough already to return their nuclear arsenal to Russia in return for explicit security guarantees. What a mistake that was.
Don’t even get me started on how China is criminally underrated as a manifest threat to world peace…
The Cuban Missile Crisis was basically caused because Cuba was too close to the USA for nuclear missiles to be stored in a way that the balance of MAD could be maintained.
The so-called Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by Kennedy moving nuclear missiles into Turkey, within striking range of the USSR. It never would have happened if Kennedy hadn’t decided to start swinging his dick around.
I don’t even know what they (western tankies) get from this. Average dumbass Russian only cares about his ass, and the pretended “glory”. There is no “Conservative brotherhood which spans across the ocean”. They don’t speak your language, they don’t have the same problem, and they hate YOU with passion, because on average, they are racist and dumb.
So my only hypothesis is that tankies think (??) that by going “contrarian” they show how smart they are, and that “did the research” lol.
No, it’s because “America bad”. There’s a lot of reasons to hate America, and the drip feeding of munitions to Ukraine is one of them. I think we should have been sending everything from the start with the only restriction being no hitting civilian targets. A million 155 shells a week. Tomahawks. Predator drones. Hell, even F-15s. I agree, end the war, but end it in a Ukrainian victory with their borders restored.
It’s even worse than that. It’s “America bad, therefore Russia good.” As if there has to be some sort of cosmic balance.
as if there has to be some sort of cosmic balance
Got me laughing, very true observation
Would have been nice to send a message to Vlad on day 1.
“Turnabout is fair play”
The best way to minimize the overall violence of a fight is to use enough force in the first moments to end the fight.
Generally speaking. Maybe.
There was never any chance of Ukrainian victory. Russia is not that weak and everyone knew it from the start.
But arming ukrainians and sending them to die weakens Russia, so the US likes that. It’s all a game, and none of it was ever in the interest of Ukraine nor its people.
Kyiv in three days!
I had a reply for a similar comment; trying to link it here, to avoid copy-pasting: https://lemmy.ml/post/23582488/15569369
I’m sure you’ll just dismiss this all as Western Imperialist propaganda since it disagrees with your worldview, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy#Three_day_war_plan
Of course, in public, Putin was much more pragmatic.
He said it would be two weeks.
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/
So would you prefer, “Kyiv in two weeks?” I’ll go with that. Exactly the same stupid idea.
Seems to me that Ukraine still exists as a country and that wouldn’t be the case if not for international support.
Are you hoping for a restoration of the Soviet Union? Any other countries on your list that don’t deserve to exist?
Russia has a long and proud history of losing to "smaller, weaker " countries. Russo Japanese war, WW1, Polish Soviet war of 1919, the winter war, Afghanistan, Chechen war until they paid homage to the Kadyrovs. there’s no reason to think there was never a chance at Ukrainian victory. Russia fumbles the bag plenty. But I get it. America bad so Russia stonk and good.
America bad so Russia stonk and good.
I think this kinda reductionist bs abolishes any kind of discussion. What does this have to do with anything? Where did I say such things?
But arming ukrainians and sending them to die weakens Russia, so the US likes that.
Right there. You said it right there And you’re changing the subject. Russian victory was never a forgone conclusion. History has shown us that.
Yet 3 years later Russia still has not completed its objectives, took its eye off Syria, and needs troops & ammo from North Korea.
And all it took was 1,000,000 dead Ukrainians!
Murdered by Russian. So tell me, in this peace of yours, who gets what and why?
You’re blaming them for defending themselves???
Tankies entire world view is formed around hating the US.
They will glorify terrible regimes that literally commit genocides and straight up murder thousands of innocents just because that regime is in opposition to US influence.
They use left wing language, but they do not care about leftist issues. They do not care about disabled people getting focibly euthanised, about anyone who dares critique the regime being forcibly silenced, about minorities being genocided (unless the US or NATO does it), that their “socialist states” literally have billionaires while others starve. They think it’s all US propaganda. (Alternatively, they’ll admit part of it and say it’s for the greater good).
A much simpler way of putting that second picture is: " . . . but that doesn’t mean you have to support another empire."
Removed by mod
They want power, over others, forever.
Removed by mod
Do you wish someone supported Iraq against America?
By the usual tankie logic, Iraq should have just given up. They had no chance to win the war.
You lack nuance.
You can’t see your own hypocrisy here at all and it’s rich af.
I’m not a tankie, but I probably am what everyone in this thread is calling a “tankie”, so here’s my answer:
Yes, it is extremely bad that Russia invaded Ukraine. The ideal scenario would have been Ukraine quickly repelling the invasion when it happened. But we don’t live in magic fantasy world where everyone gets what they deserve. We live in the real world, where Ukraine cannot possibly defeat Russia in a war. The option which saves the most Ukrainian lives is a negotiated peace, with Russia getting much more of what they want than we would like.
All that is achieved by pouring more weapons into Ukraine is prolonging the meatgrinder for years, wiping out an entire generation of Ukrainians and risking a global nuclear war.
Ukraine had a negotiated peace before the 2022 invasion, after the 2014 invasion. Why would a 2025 negotiated peace be any more reliable?
MAGAts are either too stupid to realize or too fragile to acknowledge that they’re getting ass-fucked by putin. It’s just pathetic.
It’s so bizarre to see those old Soldiers of Fortune readers, with their “Better dead than red” tee shirts, all now rooting for Russia.
Are you aware the Biden administration hasn’t spoken to Putin’s staff in two years?
Is there, in your analogy, a macho, straight, totally non anal-sex-related kind of dignity in that refusal to communicate with a nuclear adversary?
I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov. Is that me just going to town on Putin’s veiny cock? Is this whole thing just a big revealer of who’s really gay and who’s not?
I just listened to Tucker Carlson interview Sergei Lavrov.
Thanks for giving us ample reason to not care about your opinions.
Yes. You are going to town on his weiny cock.
perfectly agree with the meme, that said I’ve tried to make the same argument to people IRL and their response usually is “well Ukraine provoked them by trying to join NATO” and being the absolute dumbass that I am, I can never come up with a decent answer on the spot.
does anyone have a cool one liner to use or am I stuck with having to explain the various geopolitical issuesThe idea of Ukraine joining NATO was literally unimaginable before Russian aggression. After the fall of the soviet union there were multiple agreements like the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine and Budapest Memorandum that basically established Ukraine as a sovereign and neutral nation under the protection of the west and east. Even after Russian interventions in Ukraine and finally the taking of Crimea, NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.
Also if Russia truly cared about NATO expansion, how come we barely hear anything about Finland and Sweeden? I occasionally even forget they’re a part of it now.
In the case of Finland, it’s because they kicked Russia’s ass last time and they would do it again.
They just have to announce that they’ve cloned Simo Häyhä and Russia won’t even look at them sideways.
We lost, both times.
NATO members like Germany were still vocal about never letting Ukraine in.
I sometimes think that it was exactly because they expected things to go as they did. If they let Ukraine in, they would need to
weasel out of helpinghelp, after allShows how little u know. Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
Then zelensky tried to get nuclear weapons.Again - don’t follow msm, they have an agenda.
And you surely don’t have an agenda.
That’s why you come here with lies lmao
I don’t care about Ukraine. I don’t want my money going into military to support a country that has universal health care while I still do t have universal health care.
Fund universal healthcare, not Ukraine or Israel.
UHC is cheaper than the current US healthcare system. You can literally have both.
Funding for Ukraine isn’t holding up UHC. Bad politicians are.
Someone needs to force their hand, if you just give them what they want anyways, there is no reason for them to do anything for u
Not sure punishing Ukrainians who are being raped and murdered in their own homes forces their hand in any way whatsoever. Seems like the least efficient way to do it.
I think you need to learn how the Military-Industrial Complex works, because if weapons aren’t going to Ukraine, and it sounds like they won’t, you still won’t get your socialized medicine. Especially not in an oligarchical fascist dictatorship.
We the people should get stubborn and refuse to support the goals of military industrial complex as long as they keep refusing us our goals.
I get absolutely nothing from Israel achieving it’s goals of killing brown neighboring people and clearing space for themselves. Nothing.
Ukraine - u know what! I don’t care about it. Just cut a deal for mutual management of Ukraine and equal economic access. I don’t care about Ukraine winning or Ukraine being a strong country in eastern Europe. I do not care. It’s outside of my interests as a private citizen, only military industrial complex wants that war.
What are you doing to get “we the people” to do that other than arguing on the internet?
Fair, but it misses the trees for the forest. The US already pays WAY more for healthcare than any other country. The money is literally there, just mismanaged. While I feel your frustration, simply cutting aid to allied countries won’t change anything domestically.
They are not allied countries for me.
Israel is a genocidal regime and Ukraine is just a shithole in eastern Europe.I don’t need these as allies.
I get absolutely nothing, 0 from funding them. Cut themReally? You’re going to complain about one country’s genocide and justify another in the same sentence? At least be consistent
Okay so DO something about YOUR healthcare then.
Citation needed.
The Ukranian constitution has no amendments even mentioning NATO.
And Zelenky demanding nuclear weapons is a recent development. So not “tried” but “trying right now”. Not even the Russians claimed such prior.
And I don’t watch MSNBC or whatever else “msm” is supposed to be. Bold of you to assume I not only watch American news, but also a specific broadcaster. That’s got to be like a less than 50% chance.
MSM is mainstream media rather than a broadcaster. I actually hear it a lot from conservatives who are somehow convinced that Fox News isn’t mainstream media despite being the USA’s most watched network.
Ukraine literally put NATO into the constitution prior to 2022.
Everyone knows that’s how becoming a NATO member works!
The EU works that way too! You tell them you want to join, make it super official that you pretty please want to join, and then you’re in!
The husband who beats his wife analogy might work. “She deserved it, she thought about going to the police” Another thing, even if it was predictable doesn’t make it wrong to help Ukraine no matter what.
The husband who beats his wife analogy might work.
These are the same people who support Trump and putin soooo
Removed by mod
It basically comes down to this: being a sovereign nation means being allowed to choose your own alliances.
Calling it a “provocation” is denying Ukraine sovereignty over their own country.
Which is fundamental misunderstanding of international politics according to Political Realism. Hegemonic powers never care about these de jure arguments anyway and will practicality always act in accordance to int’s own intressets, leaving weaker nations to navigate it.
Hegemonic powers
You can just say Russia you know. And yes, we know Russia doesn’t care about de jure arguments, they only understand power and violence. De-jure arguments are just a tool to them to give talking points to useful idiots in the West, in order to sow division and weaken us.
Political Realism
The question really is: do we accept a world where a third-rate regional power gets to trample all over its neighbors, using unimaginable violence and cruelty if those neighbors refuse to act as submissive client states?
From a moral and legal point of view, it’s a no-brainer to argue that we should not accept this, but even from your a-moral “real politik” point of view we should not accept it either because it goes squarely against our own interests to let a rogue state Russia regain its former superpower status by conquering major client states. Europe and the US are much stronger than Russia, so even your Political Realism dictates that we should help Ukraine defeat Russian aggression.
So yeah, there is no world in which “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is a valid argument. If you think there is, you can burn in hell with Kissinger for all I care.
You can just say Russia you know.
Alright. Consider it done and now your response is some sort of recognition that that what i said is the case but this well established, hundreds of years old field of political theory is devilish trick by our enemies to devise us. Which does nothing to strengthen your shallow view on national sovereignty.
As already hinted at: Political Realism is a fucking theory of international relations. It’s used to explain things in reality. So you have to understand that it’s true for every hegemonic power. It’s not unique to Russia. Do you think that the US lead invasion of Afghanistan was respecting their sovereignty? They had no obligation to extradite Bin Laden and we got to see what it meant to not dance to their pipe. The list can go on ad nauseam, we have a couple of thousand years of ‘whatabouts’ here. There is no need to pretend that this is some weird trick of our enemies to divide and fool you, it’s an observable fact about international politics. And it absolutely does you no favors to have this self-sealing mind in the face of it. Weaker nations have always, and will continue, to curtail their own sovereign choices in favor of navigating the interests of greater powers and kept as much sovereignty as they can. Sure they have the radical free will to do anything, but in reality things happens as a result… even if you don’t like it. And hence a field of science to understand this process, that looks a-moral due to a lack of having it observed.
Heck, I see that you sort of get the principles of the political theory. As you said, it’s in the west interest to not have Russia attack her neighbors. So it manages to describe both Russias actions and the West response to it. It will even describe the limits of our support.
So a better counter to “bUt UkRaInE pRoVoKeD RuSsIa” is to say yes, but I want a want a weak Russia.
“So a nation is not allowed to make its own decision about defense or else Russia just gets to have it?”
“Nations beg to join NATO which is very reluctant and has a long drawn out entry process”
And the annexation of crimea was not provoking and pressuring them to search for defense from NATO?
For the fucking tankies and MAGAts, if the French and King Louis XVI would have turned their backs on the US colonials from 1775 to 1783, the Red Coats would have crushed your rebellion and you would have been another Dominion like Canada. Hang on, someone press reset.
You mean I would have had universal healthcare?!
Mother fucking French…
😂 …indeed.
So I understand that MAGA is U.S. based, but how many of the “tankies” do you really think are from the U.S.
/me sees title. “Oh, these comments are gonna be fun…”
Red-painted fascists just can’t help themselves. War is Completely Justified Resistance And Blowback until someone actually fights back, at which point it’s Pointlessly Extending The Conflict
Wait, why are tankies siding with magas? I’ve been intentionally away for a minute, what did I miss?
Did something major happen in the last three days? Or is this the usual redirection of hate after we’ve found something to rally around?
Maga-Communism is a thing for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Hinkle
Fash and red fash are basically the same thing loyal to different empires.
Removed by mod
Your description of the tankie position doesn’t explain why they call for Ukraine to surrender like Russia isn’t the aggressor. Leftists in general do realize it’s a proxy war like you said, but we call for the invader to stop invading. Because, you know… The victim of an invasion surrendering doesnt usually lead to good outcomes for the victim.
What an insulting interpretation that yet again ignores Russian responsibility for this war. It was ONLY their decision.
Removed by mod
What do you mean?
If you keep feeding the troll we’ll end up with troll shit all over the lawn.
deleted by creator
Even this place is full or russian propaganda? Referring to some comments.
It’s generally pretty easy to spot. Just look for a short inflammatory sentence without any substance or relevance. They try to fan the flames of conservative meme culture to try and rile up angry and useless debate.
short inflammatory sentence without any substance or relevance you say? Does this count as an example?
MAGAts are either too stupid to realize or too fragile to acknowledge that they’re getting ass-fucked by putin
Yes, that’s a great example of how propaganda influences the culture of discussion. Russia has been a key source of pushing this kind of rhetoric for a long time, with the specific goal of shifting the culture away from meaningful debate and toward juvenile, reactionary responses. Even though the comment you highlighted comes from the opposite point of view, it’s a perfect example of how effective Russian propaganda campaigns have been at shaping and distorting cultural discourse, muddying the waters and preventing genuine conversations from taking place. Your example is a result of their efforts as I highlighted in my original statement.
Definitely.
Removed by mod
I have to ask, why do people simp for putin? not russia, but putin?
Can you give an example of someone who doesn’t simp for russia, but simps for Putin?
Are there any arguments from those in favor of supplying weapons to Ukraine that isn’t some kind of sexual shaming?
Are there any arguments from those in favor of supplying weapons to Ukraine that isn’t some kind of sexual shaming?
“Genocide is bad and should be resisted”, but I understand Trump voters aren’t a fan of that idea.
multi-polar imperialism
It was never about land, it’s about not letting Ukraine become more westernly oriented. https://youtube.com/watch?v=MhpoNL1gZbw
When we keep talking about it just being about land we let Russia get closer to their actual goals.
“become more westernly oriented” is a strange way to say “stop being a Russian vassal state”
It’s the American way.
deleted by creator
