• LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on

    This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.

    I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.

        • mashbooq@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          it’s 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US’s wars are evil 99% of the time isn’t a reason to reject the one good one

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.

          Or

          It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression

          It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?

            What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.

            So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.

            • rdri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.

              As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.

              Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.

      You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.