• GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The general “tankie” position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      US bombing is bad, but Russian bombing is ok? Why do you not apply the same critical spirit to both the USA war crimes and the Russian war crimes?

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it constitutes war crimes according to neutral analysts, it’s not.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.

          • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.

              • captcha [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.

                • It’s weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their ‘big brothers’ to “they weren’t using exactly the same weapons so it doesn’t count”.

                  Nazi’s were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn’t help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi’s anyway.