• GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The fact that Putin is the one who started this war? This war wouldn’t be a thing if a) Russia didn’t annex Crimea, b) Russia didn’t send “totally not Russian troops” into Donbas and c) Russia didn’t do a full invasion of Ukraine. Not to mention this war would be over tomorrow if Putin withdrew his troops.

        Putin started this and Putin can end this, it’s all his choice.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          So… any idea why “Putin” supposedly did all that?

          I’m not asking for justifications. It’s just so weird to me that people apparently think that

          1. Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)
          2. Putin doesn’t need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don’t do shit without reason)

          And the moment I’m trying to understand the situation a bit better, I’m called a Putin troll, a fascist and get downvoted into oblivion.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            So… any idea why “Putin” supposedly did all that?

            Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government. Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.

            Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)

            But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don’t qualify for the election. The other “suitable” electoral candidates exists solely to keep the up the appearance of democracy. The Duma also exists to keep up appearances. And the reason Putin has a lot of support is because he has manufactured consent through the state owned media. He’s also sowing indifference in the opposition by publicly eliminating opponents to indicate that this is what happens if you oppose him. He is ruling unopposed.

            Putin doesn’t need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don’t do shit without reason)

            What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him. If you have an autocratic leader the state does what the leader wants. Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that’s the only reason the Russian state needs.

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government

              “Pro-EU” is one way of putting it. Ukraine became an economic and militaristic threat to Russia.

              Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.

              Sorry, this kind of narrative is again way too much “great man theory” for my tastes.

              But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don’t qualify for the election.

              Yes, it’s a very obvious example of power politics in electoral politics. But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him. Putin is acting in the name of a sovereign nation. Individualising his goals and behaviors (acting as if it’s the whims of a person) is not helping if you want to understand the situation.

              What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him.

              And there are reasons for him to do so. It’s a strategy to further his goals. I’m not claiming that the strategy is good or that I align with the goals, but the are there and it’s important not to lose track of them.

              Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that’s the only reason the Russian state needs.

              Imperialism meaning to extend the power of a nation for its own benefit beyond its borders. This can be in militaristic nature by invasion, but also in economic nature via economical warfare.

              Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn’t be such a big issue).

              I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west’s imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can’t condone.

              If Russia loses, Ukraine’s economy will be so crippled and its population will be so decimated that it has no other choice than to take credit and be exploited from European companies. It will be like what happened in Greece, but 100 times worse. Selensky will be ok, as he’ll most likely get some position at some board, but in any case: the Ukrainian people (the people whose interests are most aligned with mine) will lose in any case.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                58 minutes ago

                “Pro-EU” is one way of putting it.

                Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that’s arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you’re willing to view the events in good faith

                But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him.

                What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putins allies but didn’t agree with the invasion? You’re quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.

                Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn’t be such a big issue).

                The US dropping out isn’t a big issue because of economics issues, it’s because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid. Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.

                I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west’s imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can’t condone.

                And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.

                Now Ukraine either ends up under the iron thumb of Russia (much like Belarus) or Ukraine ends up economically dependent on the EU. Of the two choices IMO it’s pretty clear which is a more favorable outcome.