this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2023
17 points (90.5% liked)
World News
32064 readers
906 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody honestly believes Putin started the war to fight Nazis, he just used it as an excuse because he thought the West would stay out of his way for this flimsy lie. Instead he was quickly called out for using resources such as his own Wagner Group in the war which directly recruit modern Nazis, and thus lost all credibility.
Russia also said demilitarisation and pointed fingers at NATO. If it's this and denazification, it would suggest that Russia was hoping for NATO/the West to get involved in exactly the way that it got involved.
Further, the Russian perspective is that NATO was already involved by running a coup then supporting about a decade of shelling in Donbass. If that's the case – and the important detail here is not what westerners think NATO reps were doing in Ukraine all those years, but what Russia thought – there is no logical scenario in which Western involvement comes as a surprise. It was known to be there before the invasion.
And if NATO really wasn't in Ukraine before that invasion, the point still stands: Russia expected NATO involvement even if it's initial intelligence was faulty.
That doesn't mean denazification is the main reason for the invasion. Although there are people who accept that reasoning as it was more than just a Nazi presence. It was an organised Nazi terror campaign against ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, killing thousands.
No matter how you look at it, Putin was just swinging his dick around thinking he was a big boy that could tell everyone else where to stick it. I really do believe he thought Russia was a dominant world power, but he's living in the dark ages and didn't have a clue that social media can change governments. Zelenskyy knew how to play the game and got people to care about his country again, and that immediately made a difference in how much aid they could ask for.
Isn't this supposed to be the same guy who allegedly interfered in US elections using social media to put orange man in office?
I'm not sure if you wilfully missed the point of my comment or if I wasn't explicit enough. I wasn't commenting on whether or not that was Putin's motivation. My complaint was with the logic: "there can't be a Nazi problem in Ukraine, because Zelenskyy is Jewish". That's it. That logic is faulty and disingenuous, because that implies there is not a nazi problem in Ukraine, when there absolutely is.
There is a nazi problem in pretty much every country, it may just have a different label. This does not justify declaring war.
Was it justified in WWII?
If simply having nazis in your country is a justification, the US could have attacked itself as well. Today, we still have nazis, by one label or another, in pretty much every country. Declaring war is justified only when their actions reach a certain level.
And remember, countries don't have friends, they have interests.
I see. I'm glad you answered this in the spirit it was intended. On reflection, it may have come across a bit sarcastic, which was not intended.
At what point would the shelling of ethnic Russians in Ukraine have justified war? This doesn't seem to have been the tipping point, as it happens, which seems to have been the threat of Ukraine joining NATO. But it is an important factor that goes well beyond 'just' having a Nazi presence, which I agree does not justify war (which can only be justified in self defence, in my view).
The US may have interests rather than friends, but China does things differently. Participation in the BRI, I believe, depends on a willingness to act as 'partners'. That concept seems closer to friendship than to mere interests. From a class perspective, a country's bourgeoisie will have interests rather than friends, but their workers can, must, be friends.
This would be clear cut where there were a dictatorship of the proletariat, which Russia is far from, nowadays. Still, if the notion of interests-not-friends is not universal, then a more subtle analysis of Russian actions may be required.
I'll just quote myself though honestly I shouldn't respond:
Note also that did I did not comment on the justness of declaring war.
Not sure why your reply didn't show up in my mailbox but I happened to spot it when scrolling through the thread again... So to answer your question, no it wasn't about willfully missing your point, but rather that I wasn't certain exactly where your argument was leading. I did catch the drift of the idea that both arguments could be true, I've just been jaded by reading enough shills on reddit who came back with "Putin wuz justified!" shit that I didn't want to leave it to chance.
Also, most people bringing up "but the Ukrainian Nazis!!!!" are arguing in bad faith (and a lot are fascists themselves, lol). So rather than wasting your time giving a nuanced overview of the far right in Ukraine, Russia, and the West to someone who's just going to ignore it and reply in bad faith anyways, it's way easier to just say "Zelensky's Jewish, lol" and move on with your life.
(To be 100% clear: I DO NOT THINK THE PERSON YOU REPLIED TO IS ARGUING IN BAD FAITH. This comment is more a blanket generalization, not about this specific interaction.)
On reddit I typically ignore them as nearly all are either bots, paid propagandists, or Nazis themselves who are stupid enough to think they're going to change someone's mind. But Lemmy is a whole new ballgame, and if the poster IS one of the above trying to be sneaky about sowing doubt, I didn't want to leave the comment unchallenged for others to get the wrong idea. I mean this whole post could have just been left at "Putin said..." and most of us just have a good laugh and move on. :-)
It's wild to me that you genuinely think everyone who disagrees with you is either a "bot, paid propagandist, or Nazi". Are there some of those amongst people who disagree with you? Probably. But to think it's "nearly all" means you are oblivious. The spectrum of human belief is wide, and people on the opposite side of the spectrum are still people. To call them a bot or paid propagandist is dehumanizing ("no real human could hold such an opinion"). To call them a Nazi is (unless you can show that they likely are) just an attempt to shut the conversation down as well. You act like you're trying to help foster good conversation, that you're here to help correct misinformation or the like; but the fact that your first instinct is to just dismiss the humanity of someone who disagrees with you, and shut down the conversation by any means rather than actually having a discussion, contradicts your stated intent.
Hold a conversation, which is a back-and-forth, where neither person should assume bad of the other person; you should both assume you are there to participate in good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. This assumption of bad-faith helps no-one, especially not the people you think you're helping; they see someone getting "shut-down", not "disproven".
"Zelenskyy is Jewish therefore there is no Nazi problem is Ukraine" is logical nonsense. It's a quick quip but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
It's also not of any value to anyone to assert that people arguing against you must be arguing in bad faith, or are themselves fascists. If something specific can be pointed to that makes either of those seem likely, call that out. Otherwise you're trying to shut down the conversation, not have real discussion.