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).
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).
US and Ukraine puppet rulers 100% instigated the war, and are the one who want it to continue. It is categorically false that Russia is interested in ruling all of Ukraine. Tolerating or believing such BS ensures your own oppression. Every US war is tolerated because you are brainwashed into stories of their leader deserving US aggression. War/sanctions is not for your benefit. Pressing for nuclear war with your absurd lies and tolerance for demonic diminishment of world is bad for you too.
There seems to be a “wokeness” over propaganda for Israel genocide, Syria insurection, and every single other war and coup the US is involved in, and the corporatist oligarchist propaganda subjugating you, and meant to subjugate you. When you humanize such disgusting lying propaganda as Russia is the one who is the aggressor in Ukraine, your idiocy fully guarantees your oppression, and you get these disappointing expectations that NYT can be “left wing” while neocon/Israel first oligarchist liars instead.
Putin said in a speech in Feb 2022 that the idea of Ukraine as an independent nation is a fiction and blames Lenin for its existence. He has always believed the entire area belongs to Russia as he said it himself.
Irrelevant context of insulting Ukraine. All that matters is conditions for ending/avoiding war. Not history that in restrospect proves Ukrainians to be assholes.
Weird. Even the Libertarian CATO institute agrees with you:
Nazi apologist 🥳
Ad hominem’s, sad 😔 I’m more concerned with historical facts:
It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower
I wouldn’t say “Nazi apologist” is an ad hominem… It seems directly related to the discussion at hand.
I wasn’t aware Ukraine or Russia were National Socialists. Reducto ad Hitlerum.
Is there a “trying to fit everything you don’t like into a fallacy in order to dismiss it outright” fallacy?
There is the “fallacy fallacy,” but that’s slightly different I believe (though you’re also doing that one).
But I’ll indulge: You know nobody was referring specifically to the National Socialist party of 1930s Germany. Don’t be obtuse.
If you try to infer that the argument of your opponent can be dismissed because of their character, then it is a clear argumentum ad hominem
This might help
That’s not what’s being inferred.
So you’re saying Russia doesn’t want the war to continue? So why are they fighting in Ukraine then? What are their actual goals and when will the invasion stop?
What evidence makes you so sure, and how do you explain the fact that Russia tried to invade Kyiv? Or do you disagree that Russia tried to invade Kyiv?
When Ukraine agrees to stay neutral and not join NATO. That simple. Same as prior to war, or 1 month after war. They would idealy denazify, or at least eliminate persecutory anti-Russian laws, or if they don’t allow referendums for anti-nazi regions to join Russia.
The siege of Kyiv did motivate Ukrainian peace talks. Was likely a mistake to withdraw in good faith based on agreement in talks.
What’s the principle behind Russia being allowed to prevent Ukraine or another country from entering alliances? Why doesn’t this same principle apply to the Baltic states? And if Russia were to successfuly capture all of Ukraine, would it then have a right to demand similar neutrality from Moldova, Romania, and other states it would then borders? And does the same principle apply the other way - i.e. would it have been just for NATO to say Belarus can’t ally with Russia when Lukashenko took over and invaded them?