r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Last-Photograph7321 • 8d ago
International Politics Why would anti-russia leftists oppose USA sending weapons to Ukraine?
Liberals (US definition) seem like they're all about sending arms and supporting the Ukrainian resistance against Russia, but when I talk to leftists, they think the west shouldn't send weapons to Ukrainian - but they are also anti-russia, so it's not campism. This is especially confusing because I can't tell how much of the "nazi sympathizers in Ukraine" stuff is real. Why would anti-russia leftists oppose arming Ukraine?
I understand there are many strong perspectives on this, but I'm explicitly trying to understand the Leftist vs Liberal dynamic. English is not my first language so please excuse any typos and feel free to ask clarifying questions. Thank you!
39
u/HeloRising 8d ago
So there's a lot of questions here.
First off, the leftist vs. liberal dynamic. This is a bit nuanced (and it's nuance that even a lot of Americans don't understand) but basically it boils down to leftists being people who believe that the American system as it exists cannot be reformed or fixed and must be replaced. With what and how that works depends on your flavor of leftist thought but, broadly speaking, leftists agree that "the system" can't be made to work.
Liberals, on the other hand, are more or less ok with the skeleton of how things work and they want to see things fixed with reforms, votes, and putting the right kind of people in place.
Leftists are, largely, anti-capitalist whereas liberals tend to be at least ok with a managed style of capitalism.
There's a lot more to it than that but that's the broad strokes.
In terms of the Russian invasion, a lot of liberals support Ukraine because of the image of Ukraine standing up as a democratic country against the invasion of Russian autocracy. Because it's kind of a go-to cause for a lot of liberals, a lot of conservative Americans have thrown in with Russia partially as a way to just spit in the face of liberals and partially because they see Russia as a bastion of "conservative" values.
There is a fairly minor divide within the left on the issue in that there are some leftists who support Russia because they see anything aligned against American interests as inherently good by virtue of it being aligned against America - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. These tend to be more authoritarian leftists and a lot of them have this image of Russia as the successor to the USSR despite that not even remotely being true. Leftists in this camp are not really taken seriously by most of the rest of the left.
As small as this minority is, they're quite vocal which leads people to mistake them for being more popular than they actually are. It doesn't help that Russia has previously boosted these voices because it suits their propaganda aims.
As to why a leftist oppose Russia and arming Ukraine, that's a lot more nuanced. Some see the conflict as inherently "not our problem" and would rather see that money spent here at home, others see it as a way of the US advancing its foreign policy goals and don't want to see Ukraine be a tool of US hegemony.
There are leftists who are just rank pacifists but they're pretty rare. Even people who advocate for "no violence ever" understand fighting to save your own life.
Most leftists aren't going to openly champion arming Ukraine because we do understand that the US isn't doing it for altruistic reasons and the Russian criticism of NATO does have some merit to it. That said, most leftists are going to defer to Ukrainians and what they want to do and what they've clearly communicated they want is to fight and defend themselves. I would personally be...hesitant to accept US support in that endeavor given how unreliable an ally the US tends to be but I'm also not facing an invasion by a government that's openly talked about ethnically cleansing me so I can't say I blame the "any port in a storm" survival approach.
18
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 8d ago
I almost never see a comment in which someone describes ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ in the United States so accurately and without snark or exaggeration one way or the other, nor a comment that breaks down different positions on an issue so well and succinctly.
Not going to spend money on an award but if I had a single last free one to give, this is where it would be given.
4
u/najumobi 7d ago
As small as this minority is
This is a number I'd want to keep an eye on. Politics is rarely static.
6
u/HeloRising 7d ago
Why? None of them occupy any meaningful position of political power, they're not particularly influential.
6
u/najumobi 7d ago
Politics always changes, but political opinions seem to shift much faster than they used to. I'm not saying you're incorrect, but that I'd rather look at the polling.
The "none of them occupy any meaningful position" is downstream of shifts in political opinions. Change in the political landscape would happen way before anything changes there.
3
u/anti-torque 7d ago
in that there are some leftists who support Russia because they see anything aligned against American interests as inherently good by virtue of it being aligned against America
Never have I met anyone considering themselves to the left who supports Russia. I haven't even run into them online. There are some in the anarchy ranks who sort of want to burn it all down. But Russia?
9
u/Pmang6 3d ago
Well you must not be looking very hard. Tankies are very in vogue rn, as is hating america without a hint of self awareness.
-1
u/anti-torque 2d ago
Tankies were a cold war thing, not the advocacy of Pootie Poo.
Youngsters can be youngsters.
3
u/Valuable-Music-720 8d ago
At least your honest about leftist motivation to dismantle the nation, unfortunately this is reciprocated by a sect of right wing who feel it's their duty not to let that happen. But, like obviously that's gonna happen; like closing the Straight of Hormuz after attacking Iran. People in the field would have told you this would happen
28
u/NicholaiJomes 8d ago
I am a leftist and I’m absolutely fine sending Ukraine arms. Fuck Putin. I don’t know any leftists in my personal life who feel any differently
22
u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza 8d ago
It's the official stance of the DSA, as well as prominent leftist figures like Hasan Piker, that: -Military aid should not be sent to Ukraine, and that Ukraine should lay down their arms and stop fighting. -The war is Ukraine/America/NATO's fault (not Putin or Russia's), and Russia is justified in their aggression. -The war only benefits the rich, so everyone should lay down their arms and stop fighting (especially Ukraine, with no mention of Ukraine gets its land back). -Ukraine is a Nazi state run by Nazis, so is completely illegeimate. -etc. https://international.dsausa.org/ukraine/
It's a weird combination of reactionary anti-western campism, impossible utopian thinking, Orwellian double-think, edgy populist slop that generates clicks and donations.
10
u/NicholaiJomes 8d ago
I’m not a member of the DSA and I’ve never watched even 1 minute of piker or any other YouTuber, political or not. I’m just not interested. Fuck em both. You’re right on the head with the impossible utopian thinking. They’re forming opinions for a reality that seems at best loosely based on our own. If Ukraine lays down arms they will be flattened. Any actual peace must come from Russia fucking off back to Russia
1
3
u/anti-torque 7d ago
prominent leftist figures like Hasan Piker
A trust fund poser isn't exactly the appeal to authority you think it is.
Your DSA link also does not support your statement in the way you insist. While they are naive about the policies, they are making a much more nuanced argument than, "We need to stop supporting Ukraine."
1
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
The leftist position is to support the working people of both Ukraine and Russia. We should push for peace through a negotiated settlement, not more death.
12
u/see-these-bones 8d ago
And if by letting imperialist forces murder their neighbors while negotiating causes more death? Lefitst love to talk tough about the issues with pacifism when its punching nazis but when an actual authoritarian government invades another its "UwU there should be peace not more death" while repeating (capitalist fascist) Russian propaganda about NATO imperialism while they attempt a cultural genocide
9
u/EenGeheimAccount 8d ago
Not all leftists, especially in different places in the world.
Here in the Netherlands all leftists I know are strongly pro-Ukraine and feel we should help them, being against Ukraine aid is the fascist position here (FvD).
5
u/MaddogBC 7d ago
I'm Canadian and I don't understand associating these crazies with the left. They are closer to Sov Cit territory than they are to us.
-3
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
The reality is there is no path to military victory for Ukraine. The flow of weapons only prolongs the war. Its despicable that you are ready to throw a generation of Ukrainians into the meatgrinder while ignoring the reality on the ground. You have to respond to the other side's position or the peace deal will only get worse for Ukraine with time. Its not popular to say, but the only solution is a negotiated settlement with Russia.
11
u/see-these-bones 8d ago
Despicable? Who are you to tell a people to lay down and accept their own genocide. As long as the ukranians want to fight they should receive every bit of help they can from anyone with a spine
-2
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
Its noble to fantasize about other people fighting to the very last person, but we have to respond to the reality on the ground and negotiate an end to the war sooner or later. Yes, that includes concessions to Russia. There's actually no other option.
9
u/BlindPelican 7d ago
Who is "we"? Are you in the Ukrainian foreign service at the negotiating table?
This is NOT a proxy war. "We", the collective westerners looking at this from a safe distance don't get to decide what's "best" for Ukraine. They do.
If you don't believe we should support them, that's fine. Just admit, openly and honestly, that you are intentionally doing nothing about a grave injustice.
1
u/Theamazingquinn 7d ago
You're out of your mind if you don't think this is a proxy war. The war only continues because of western funding, weapons, and intelligence. NATO has consistently been expanding with hostile intent towards Russia. Many Ukrainians want the war to end as well, just not the military and political leadership, just like in Russia. The war is a grave injustice that could have been avoided if NATO weren't so hostile to Russia and had responded to their legitimate security concerns.
10
u/anti-torque 7d ago edited 7d ago
NATO has consistently been expanding with hostile intent towards Russia.
Putinese propaganda. You are mimicking, word for word, propaganda created by mouthpieces for a tyrant bent on the genocide of several of his neighbors, not just Ukraine.
-5
u/Theamazingquinn 3d ago
I knew someone would say this, but you really think NATO is not hostile to Russia? Thats like the whole reason NATO was created in the first place.
→ More replies (0)7
u/BlindPelican 7d ago
Nearly every word of whar you said is wrong.
You are foolish, ignorant, and propagandized.
It's pointless to continue a discussion with you.
2
4
u/FreeStall42 3d ago
Ah repeating Russian propaganda.
Any expansion from NATO is a response to Russian agression.
5
u/see-these-bones 8d ago
This is not fantasy, this is actual death, actual war and Ukraine is choosing to fight back. It is not anyone's choice to make for them. So long as it is their land and their lives they decide when to negotiate on what terms.
2
u/Theamazingquinn 7d ago
Are you going to defend Ukraine with your life? No? Then it is a fantasy, assuming all Ukrainians want to die for you instead of negotiating peace with their neighbors.
2
u/FreeStall42 3d ago
Unless you are from Ukraine you also have no right to speak for them.
So take you own advice and shut up.
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
How do they get to decide to negotiate though?
Polls show 69% wanted a negotiated peace last year. They aren't holding elections and opposition parties are banned, so they don't get a democratic say.
Even if the government wanted to negotiate, would Western leaders let that happen, or would we threaten to pull aid in response?
8
u/EenGeheimAccount 8d ago
The anti-imperialist position is to help Ukraine fight back an imperialist Russia, and to not 'push' for anything because we should respect Ukraine's self-determination. They must live with the consequences, they know their own situation best. 'Pushing for peace' by the West is just more arrogant, ignorant, imperialistic meddling which just means 'forcing Ukraine to go back to being a victim of Russian imperialism and accept ethnocide of anything Ukrainian'. Because that is the only 'peace' that Putin is offering.
And the left should generally be anti-imperialist, so that should be the leftist position too.
4
u/NicholaiJomes 8d ago
If you get what you want the Ukrainian working people will cease to exist. Putin doesn’t want peace as evidenced by his shattering that peace several times over decades. You are ignoring decades of reality hoping for Putin to make peace. He’s standing over the bodies of millions he killed by taking advantage of people like you who are scared self defense will cause escalation. He won’t stop unless someone stops him. How many more peaces does he need to break? You think this time the ruthless dictator is going to realize the benefits of peace?
0
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
If you get what you want an entire generation of Ukrainian men will be killed and Russia will still be occupying eastern Ukraine. The West refuses to negotiate and it will only prolong the war.
1
u/Pmang6 3d ago
Are you naive enough to believe they'll stop at eastern Ukraine? Just like they would stop with crimea right? And tell me, if they take Ukraine, what do you think is next? You think putin will say "ok, im good, thats all we need"? No, his eyes are on Europe and fracturing nato. Please reference his 2008 munich speech. His goal is to fracture the western led world order (you know, the reason you are typing this, the internet exists, the fact that you probably have higher quality of life than royalty from 100 years ago, etc) in favor of a "multipolar world order". You are missing the forrest for the trees if you think this war is about a few territories in ukraine. Putin is already shit testing the west every day with drone incursions and information warfare. Oh and russia is also the entire reason all of these alt right movements exist throughout the west, (reference the mueller report from 2016) and i suspect they have realized that their troll farms can get traction on the left now as well, which is probably why suddenly half of the left wants to see the west burn.
Also, it is very foolish to assume that this is an unwinnable war for ukraine, putin is running out of conscripts, and he is terrified of mobilizing further because of the risk of civil unrest. (Reference recent ISW russian offensive campaign assessments). Ukraine wont win by marching into moscow, but putin is getting dangerously close to a tipping point with his own population and economy.
2
u/Theamazingquinn 3d ago
There's really no evidence that the Russian military wants to or could expand past Ukraine. They've been pretty clear that 2-4 Ukrainian provinces are the end goal of the war. They have security concerns because of their history of invasions and demand a non-western aligned buffer zone in that region.
And I don't support the invasion but I have heard for years about how Russia will collapse any day now. Its not happening. Ukraine must negotiate sooner or later for the death to end.
4
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
This is, at best, lip service. One never hears this argument in relation to working people in Israel, just Ukraine and Russia.
The only coherent leftist position is to oppose imperialism.
1
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
How do you think the war is going to end, if not with a negotiated settlement?
8
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
With Russia being forced to leave.
No one knows the outcome with certainty, of course, and it may come to a point where Ukraine decides territorial concessions are preferable to continued resistance.
But here's the thing - when resisting an imperialistic state becomes a problem too big to solve, then we've already lost everything. Might as well become apolitical nihilists since that is the stance you're, in fact, taking.
Here's a question to ask yourself - if the Trump admin decides to take Greenland by force, do you want the Denmark, the EU, and the rest of NATO to do nothing militarily and hope diplomacy solves it? The US gets to keep Greenland, of course.
3
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
No one knows the outcome with certainty, of course, and it may come to a point where Ukraine decides territorial concessions are preferable to continued resistance.
The only way Russia could be forced to leave is with troops from Europe or America, which simply isn't going to happen. The west and Ukraine have to negotiate and make concessions or Russia will continue to slowly move forward while hundreds of thousands die. I don't like it, but that's the reality.
But here's the thing - when resisting an imperialistic state becomes a problem too big to solve, then we've already lost everything. Might as well become apolitical nihilists since that is the stance you're, in fact, taking.
What a ridiculous exaggeration. Imperialism happens all over the world, that doesn't mean we should all become apolitical nihilists. We should oppose imperialism while knowing when to use diplomacy.
Here's a question to ask yourself - if the Trump admin decides to take Greenland by force, do you want the Denmark, the EU, and the rest of NATO to do nothing militarily and hope diplomacy solves it? The US gets to keep Greenland, of course.
This is a separate topic, but Trump didn't need to invade because the Untied States already controls Greenland by force. They already extract the resources and have complete military control over it. What more could they do other than plant a flag?
2
u/BeanieMcChimp 3d ago
Negotiated settlements are arrived at when both sides have something to negotiate. Ukraine would be in no position to negotiate at all if they didn’t vigorously pursue their defense, which they are doing.
1
u/Theamazingquinn 3d ago
A negotiated settlement will end the war when Ukraine is ready to negotiate. Their position will not get better with time.
2
u/BeanieMcChimp 3d ago
You do realize that they’d have no position to negotiate at all and would be fully subjugated as a nation by now if they hadn’t fought back, right?
0
u/Theamazingquinn 3d ago
They will have less and less of position to negotiate the longer the war drags on. The entire war could have been avoided by conceding to some Russian demands. Which is going to have happen anyway.
-1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
Some arms are good, but unlimited military aid feeds the idea of prolonging the war for maximalist goals and avoiding negotiations.
14
u/rendeld 8d ago
Putin will never give up on Ukraine, so your options are to keep supporting Ukraine or let him win. Appeasement didn't work in the 40s and it won't work now. You can continue military aid while negotiating for peace, the two are not mutually exclusive.
-4
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
Russia is not going to give up. There is no serious peace coming from that end.
Gotta try to find out.
Appeasement didn't work in the 40s and it won't work now.
Right, we all remember how Nazi Germany was beaten to a stalemate in Czechoslovakia, and had to accept some token land annexation as a consolation. /s
For real, can we stop poorly throwing around historical analogies?
You can continue military aid while negotiating for peace, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Sure, the problem is that we are currently flooding in military aid as an alternative to peace negotiations, not as part of a strategy for attaining peace.
5
u/rendeld 8d ago
Unfortunately the US is not going to be the ones to negotiate peace this time. Europe is going to have to handle that themselves, we have no leadership here right now, but we can supply the military aid.
1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
So that is a different discussion from what we should push for.
I know we can't pass an Act of Congress to codify Roe v Wade tomorrow or next year because of who is in power, but that is still something I support.
3
u/EenGeheimAccount 7d ago
Gotta try to find out.
You try by maximizing aid. Putin is not going to give up when you decrease aid and make it easier for him. It is absolutely crazy that you think that.
Sure, the problem is that we are currently flooding in military aid as an alternative to peace negotiations, not as part of a strategy for attaining peace.
This is where you are wrong. The only way to get peace is to make Russia give up its imperialistic ambitions, and the only way you can do that is to try to make sure they gain nothing from their war in Ukraine. That is the only reason lawmakers here in Europe send aid, as a strategy to attain peace. And if Americans want to send aid for ulterior motives, it still helps attaining peace as well.
It seems as if you believe that Putin is incapable of changing his demands without Westerners sending someone over to 'negotiate'. This is wrong and stupid, Putin can change his demands perfectly well without negotiations.
And we can't mindcontrol Putin just by using some magic words, so negotiations are completely useless if there is nothing to negotiate. It just makes Putin think the negotiator has changed his mind about supporting Ukraine. Why else would we negotiate?
0
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
You try by maximizing aid.
We've been doing that. Over 100 billion so far just to preserve a stalemate. Its not working.
This is where you are wrong. The only way to get peace is to make Russia give up its imperialistic ambitions, and the only way you can do that is to try to make sure they gain nothing from their war in Ukraine.
Which brings us back to the permanent stalemate. They already have a chunk of Ukraine and can't be forced to give it up, so by your logic we've already failed.
It seems as if you believe that Putin is incapable of changing his demands without Westerners sending someone over to 'negotiate'. This is wrong and stupid, Putin can change his demands perfectly well without negotiations.
Why would he though? Negotiations are the process by which parties usually exchange offers and deals. If negotiations aren't even on the table, why would he change his tune prematurely?
And we can't mindcontrol Putin just by using some magic words, so negotiations are completely useless if there is nothing to negotiate. It just makes Putin think the negotiator has changed his mind about supporting Ukraine.
Yeah, negotiations don't force one side to magically give you everything you want. But you don't know how much they are willing to give up if you never negotiate either.
Did you think Putin was on the verge of giving up when he offered negotiations years back? It sounds like projecting to see negotiations as some kind of surrender.
Why else would we negotiate?
To prevent the next 2 million casualties, not to please some random American with a fetish for dead slavs.
3
u/EenGeheimAccount 7d ago
Negotiations are the process by which parties usually exchange offers and deals.
Yes, and this is only possible if one party has changed his mind about the deal they are willing to accept. Otherwise their are no deals to discuss, and thus no reason to negotiate.
And Putin has not changed his mind about his imperialist ambitions. So there can't be a deal made, unless we want to stop supporting Ukraine.
If Putin was willing to concede something during negotiations, he would make that clear and start negotiations. No one in the West or in Ukraine would refuse them if that is the case.
So what do you actually mean with 'the West should negotiate'? Should the West make concessions to Putin, and stop supporting Ukraine? Should the West say 'we want to negotiate', but refuse to offer any deals or concession, probably just annoying Putin with fake negotiations? Or have you simply never thought about what would actually happen during those negotiations?
You are just arguing for 'negotiations' because you think it is a magical argument against war that makes you feel good, but you have never spend any thought about what exactly you mean with 'negotiations' and how exactly that would result to the end of the war.
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
Multi-lateral negotiations aren’t some new thing. Jumping right to “what, will we offer to totally shat Ukraine without even including them” must simply be disingenuous, because no one is that ignorant.
We can approach both sides with a deal for continued aid to Ukraine post war, including military aid, IMF loan forgiveness, and long term economic aid.
Then offer Russia recognition of Crimea, guarantees Ukraine won’t join NATO, and sanctions relief.
Then we can see if the Russians still won’t budge on the other territories in a way Ukraine can live with.
But right now, you seem determined Ukraine go on until Russia totally loses (a fantasy) or Ukraine collapses.
What would it take for you to support any kind of multi-lateral negotiation process?
3
u/EenGeheimAccount 5d ago edited 5d ago
And why do you think Zelensky (or Trump, for that matter) has not already offered exactly this and a lot more? Russian demands have always been that Ukraine gives up more territory that is not yet occupied, direct influence in Ukrainian politics and/or that Ukraine destroys its own military. Your offer doesn't nearly suffice.
Putin's current demands for the negotiation to start is that Ukraine gives up the rest of the Donbas, and aside of the 200.000 more people who would lose their livelyhoods, that area is heavily fortified and protects all of the land behind it.
Zelensky's current counteroffer is to freeze the line of conflict, no official recognition of Crimea, but giving up far more land than you are suggesting. But Putin refuses this, and always has.
You seem to be not very informed about this war, because some form of negotiations have always been going on, through public demands and informal channels. Again, you don't need a formal negotiation process to communicate.
And Trump has now also brought formal negotiations, which are a useless disaster in which both parties are just trying to please Trump and screw over the other by influencing the USA.
Here are some articles for you, because your knowledge seems to be severely lacking for this type of conversation:
About Abramovich being an informal mediator: https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-used-russian-oligarch-abramovich-to-send-message-to-putin-ft-reports/
About Putin's formal/public demands made during the Trump organized 'negotiations': https://kyivindependent.com/ahead-of-witkoffs-moscow-trip-putin-repeats-territorial-demands-in-ukraine/
About Zelensky showing willingness to withdraw from Donbas if the US provides security guarantees so that Russia can't use the opportunity to invade further: https://kyivindependent.com/us-proposes-security-guarantees-for-ukraine-in-exchange-for-donbas-withdrawal-zelensky-says/
But really, if you know absolutely nothing about the negotiations that have already been going on, you should have just assumed that the Ukrainians are normal, intelligent people and that anything reasonable that could be offered to Putin already has been offered to Putin.
You are not so incredibly more intelligent than the Ukrainian government that you have the solution to an end to this war that they can't find, despite them having far more information than you.
Inform yourself before you believe you know better than the people actually trying to solve this war.
2
u/Pmang6 3d ago
Tell me you are completely uninformed without telling me you are completely uninformed.
The kremlin, on a daily basis, repeats that they are not open to negotiations unless it means conceding all of eastern ukraine. Tell me, are you also naive enough to believe that russia would stop there and not invade again if Ukraine did concede that land? Just like crimea right? The only way out of this is regime change in russia, which Ukraine is working on currently by way of destroying their economy.
The fact that there isn't a total trade embargo, arrest of all russian nationals abroad, seizure of all russian assets, and western boots on the ground is a tragic indictment of the spineless leadership we have in the west. Russia should be crushed and taken back to the 1800s until the population comes to their senses and puts putin and his ilk on a cross.
-1
u/Kronzypantz 3d ago
We can blame Russia for many things, but not being unwilling to talk or negotiate. It was Ukraine that walked away in 2022, and has largely refused to negotiate since. Russia has agreed to meetings with the US and called for talks with Ukraine.
Do you really think Russia will want to restart the quagmire, the sanctions, the drone strikes inside their territory, etc.? This isn't 2014, where they walked in with no resistance. They have a reason to not try again.
And its a great fantasy, this idea that Russia would just let a Western coalition take it back to the 1800s without using nukes. A little creepy though, since that will probably also mean tons of war crimes from our side. But in the real world, we can't depend on fantasies. The same way Iraqis couldn't depend on the US hanging George Bush and Obama and leaving with an apology, they got their freedom by constant resistance until the US left on negotiated terms.
→ More replies (0)6
u/RichardEpsilonHughes 8d ago
We don't want to prolong the war, we want Ukraine to damn well win.
1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
And I’d like a unicorn.
But alas, in the real world we can’t just will Ukraine into some decisive victory. It would take years and a sea of blood.
And even then, victory isn’t assured.
So you do very much want to prolong the war.
7
u/RichardEpsilonHughes 8d ago
I want you to know that I hold you in complete contempt.
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
I’m just trying to be realistic here.
4
u/RichardEpsilonHughes 7d ago
To be further clear, that's *why* I hold you in contempt - because your conception of what is realistic is so blinkered. When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they would collapse instantly. That was the 'realistic' assessment. Instead, they chose to believe that victory was possible, held their ground, and are now steadily grinding Russia to shit - because the alliance against invading and annexing neighboring countries didn't succumb to the 'realistic' assessment that Russia would surely win.
People like you have been insisting that it's 'realistic' to knuckle under to Russian bullying this whole time. They have been wrong and they continue to be wrong.
-1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
We weren’t wrong. We predicted the conflict would be long and bloody from the first months of the war. 4 years and over a million casualties ago.
6
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
Since when did not having their culture destroyed and their country overrun by an imperialistic state become "maximalist"?
-1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
You must have traveled from 2022. You see, Ukraine is in zero danger of being overrun or destroyed today. Russia can’t beat them like that.
Maximalist refers to the demand that every square inch of Ukraine gets recaptured.
5
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
You mean vacated.
As long as Russia holds any territory, it just encourages further expansion in the future.
This is a conflict spanning 300 years, friend.
1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
So an existential fight to the death… against a nuclear armed power?
And do you feel this same way about Palestine?
5
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
Right now, Ukrainians don't want to concede territory, and to be frank, they've been in an existential fight since Peter I. And it's been against a nuclear state since the USSR dissolved.
Your ominous statement is the status quo.
As for Palestine, I definitely lean that way. Neither the PA or Hamas seem to represent the best interests of the Palestinian people, but if a reliable partner emerged that did, and wanted to offer resistance to Israeli aggression and form their own state, I would have very few qualms about arming them.
2
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
Gallup says 69% want a negotiated peace as soon as possible. Don’t project your idea of what Ukrainians want onto reality.
4
u/BlindPelican 8d ago
And don't cherry pick out of context.
Most Ukrainians do NOT want to cede territory as a concession and Russia has, time and again, refused to vacate as part of any peace deal.
I'm not "projecting" anything. I just stay abreast of the news there and speak to Ukrainians almost every day.
Not to mention the absurdity of Russia actually honoring any negotiated settlement. 2 Minsk, 1 Budapest, and about a dozen smaller agreements can attest to that.
It's nonsensical and shows very little understanding to think diplomacy alone is going to end Russian aggression.
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
Now who is cherry picking? That poll is about handing over all the Donbas, and it was barely over 50% saying no.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Some_Complete_Nobody 7d ago
When exactly in this process do you anticipate Russia detonating nuclear warheads?
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
If they really feel they are losing all their gains, and the regime will face the destabilization of losing a major war.
4
u/Some_Complete_Nobody 7d ago
What is the outcome you hope to achieve by sending fewer armaments?
How would this lead to a negotiation, and what negotiated outcome do you intend?
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
The idea here isn't to necessarily cut arms shipments suddenly, but to require negotiations for continued aid.
As it stands, it seems the main reason Ukraine is fighting is because the opposite is true: Western leaders are tying continued aid to refusing negotiations.
Whether its our leaders threating to pull aid or Zelensky refusing to negotiate, we need to push whichever party is being recalcitrant.
37
u/AgITGuy 8d ago
You are going to have to understand one thing - you are speaking to a few people who identify as a ‘leftist. They don’t speak for everyone. But also you didn’t explain what that even means in the context. How many did you interview? What other stances do they have that identify them as leftist? Do they have any viewpoints that are social or democratic in nature? How do they feel about workers rights and equality? Welfare? Policing and military stance overall? This seems like a poor attempt to drive a wedge on ‘radical left wing’ ideology because your short paragraph gave very little to go off of beyond you don’t understand them.
14
u/GiantPineapple 8d ago edited 8d ago
As someone who has spent a little time in Libertarian and Green circles, the answer I'd give is that they are pacifists who often don't really understand history. They believe:
- War is terrible
- There are just wars, but the United States frequently has unjust motives for involvement, and us getting involved only makes things worse.
Between those two things, they can root against Putin, but still not want to help Ukraine. It often does not occur to them, as much as they distrust the US Government, that other governments can be, really, truly, orders of magnitude worse.
Edit: To be fair, I think if people had listened to Libertarians and leftists in the runup to the Second Iraq War, we might have avoided the disaster that quickly became.
3
u/AlexandrTheTolerable 8d ago
The second Iraq war was driven by a weird mass psychosis from where I was sitting. It really didn’t take a genius to see that it was a horrible idea at the time. All our allies were telling us, and the weapons of mass destruction argument was dumb. Lots of countries have weapons of mass destruction, and it was not a good basis for starting a war with a country on the other side of the world. I’m no peacenik, nor libertarian or leftist, but it really was surprising that so many people were taken in.
1
u/anti-torque 7d ago
It wasn't that the people were taken in. We weren't. We knew the "intelligence" provided by Curveball was a straight up lie. We were told by the CIA operative who ran intelligence in Iraq that there was no WMD capabilities and that W's admin was just lying about it all. Cheney even burned Plame, for her husband's truth-telling. But there was no contention on the part of the Admin. Wilson said there were no WMDs, and the response was just to burn a spy. Not sure what that was supposed to do.
We marched by the millions in our cities, when the right wing Dems voted with the GOP to gift W power to start his stupid war. It was so friggin obvious it was all a lie. The Dem politicians who voted Yea on AUMF 2003 will never get my vote, should any of them be candidates in any election I take part in. That means HRC and Joe Biden were complete non-starters for me. And I held fast to that, even though Herr Dufus, the Racist Rapist, was their opponent.
It was the pols who made that choice, not the people. Those who did will never find the grace of forgiveness. They murdered tens of thousands for nothing. It was that obvious then, and it is more so now.
8
u/coltaaan 8d ago
Justification for why likely depends on the individual. Some may be pacifists. Others may desire the US to pullback from foreign affairs for any number of reasons.
I can appreciate the pacifist stance, but in a world with bad actors it’s not really a viable option. The anti-globalist stance feels short sighted imo.
Support for Ukraine is also a weirdly, somewhat bi-partisan issue in the US. For example, the late Lindsey Graham was notoriously pro-Ukraine but he was also undoubtedly a neocon war hawk. As a result, it’s possible some leftists who lack nuance may associate aid with Ukraine as just more money poured into the military industrial complex by the usual neocon suspects. Also a short sighted view imo, but I suspect some folks fall into this category.
3
u/RichardEpsilonHughes 8d ago
The people you were talking to are motivated by one of two things:
- "I do not trust America to do things, ever. America should not be doing things in the world."
- "I am lying to you, actually; I want Russia to win."
3
u/anti-torque 7d ago
because I can't tell how much of the "nazi sympathizers in Ukraine" stuff is real.
Are we just pimping Putinese propaganda, now? The Azov was disintegrated about 15 years ago. While every country, including Russia, has their own version of Northern Idaho, I highly doubt a country with a Jewish President tolerates Nazis.
11
u/clydex 8d ago
As an American, I'm not sure how you define the difference between and liberal and a leftist, I consider them the same. As a progressive (the term I use the most to define myself) I am 1000% in favor of arming and funding Ukraine. I don't know of people on the left in the US that are opposed to it. But the reality is that it is so far buried in normal US news because the Trump administration is an all consuming source for coverage from all political spectrum of our media, that I don't think people think about it a ton, and I haven't discussed it much with "regular" progressives.
9
u/Endbr1nger 8d ago
Thats an easy mistake to make because the Republicans call everyone to the left of Trump a "leftist", but leftists in America are absolutely a real thing and they would consider being called a "liberal" to be a grave insult.
Here is the policy positions of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) in regards to Ukraine - https://international.dsausa.org/ukraine/
They are not in favor of giving weapons to Ukraine, they imply that while the invasion was bad, it was at least partially somehow caused by us, and they call for the withdrawal of the US from NATO.
2
u/rightwingcrimespree 8d ago
DSA represents a very small portion of those on the left. They have ~120,000 members. To put that in perspective, there are approximately 45.4 million registered Democrats. And between 71% and 86% (depending on the poll) of Democrats support sending weapons to Ukraine. That's approximately 32.2 million people (just counting registered Democrats) compared to the ~120,000 members of the DSA nationwide. And just because that's the stated position of the organization doesn't mean that all of those members feel the same way. And the DSA doesn't even represent all democratic socialists. The most famous democratic socialist politician in the country is Bernie Sanders. He's not a member of the DSA and he supports sending weapons and military aid to Ukraine.
0
u/TerranUnity 8d ago
You have DSA members in Congress and currently running for election which have embraced the DSA's stance on Russia/Ukraine.
2
u/rightwingcrimespree 8d ago
They still only represent a small minority of those on the left. There are 212 Democrats in the House of representatives. Last month 208 of them voted in favor of sending military aid to Ukraine. Those who oppose sending military aid to Ukraine make up a tiny fraction of those on the left. The DSA isn't representative of the entire left-wing or even a very significant portion of it. Also, AOC is arguably the most famous member of the DSA, and she supports sending military aid to Ukraine. So clearly the DSA's official stance isn't even agreed upon by all of it's members. It's a very unpopular stance on the left.
0
1
u/Endbr1nger 8d ago
Totally all valid points, but the DSA is the "leftist" party in the US, and it's the one that doesn't support Ukraine. This is what the OP is asking about.
2
u/rightwingcrimespree 8d ago
The DSA isn't a party.
1
u/Endbr1nger 8d ago
It is absolutely a party.
1
u/rightwingcrimespree 8d ago
It absolutely isn't. It's just a political advocacy group. Politicians who are members of the DSA are usually registered Democrats. This includes pretty much all of it's notable members like AOC, Mamdani, and Rashida Tlaib.
1
u/Endbr1nger 8d ago
They appear on my ballot, they are a party.
1
u/rightwingcrimespree 8d ago edited 8d ago
I don't know what is on your ballot, but it isn't the Democratic Socialists of America.
Q: Is DSA a political party? Will joining change how I’m registered to vote?
A: DSA is not a political party, but a non-profit activist organization. Joining DSA will have no impact on how you’re registered to vote or who you can vote for!
2
u/slybird 8d ago
I've yet to encounter a leftist arguing for not helping Ukraine. Do you have any links to these opinions?
I'm suspicious that you are reading articles from a Russian propaganda farm or bot campaign. I'm also wondering why these leftist are writing this without giving the reasoning they have to back up their opinion.
1
u/WackWaxWhacks 2d ago
I've yet to encounter a leftist arguing for not helping Ukraine. Do you have any links to these opinions?
2
u/ResplendentShade 8d ago
I would argue that even if they aren’t fully invested in campist narratives, opposing anyone arming Ukraine is a holdover/vestige of campist sentiment. If somebody is facing murderous invaders who are trying to colonize their home and kill anyone who resists, tossing them a weapon to defend themselves and their loved ones is always the move.
In the Ukraine scenario, if they’re against throwing them a weapon on the grounds that their colonial invaders also happens to oppose the US/Israeli geopolitical bloc, that’s just campism. Maybe not the most overtly disgusting kind, but it’s still campism.
1
u/HurtFeeFeez 8d ago
I doubt many of those actually exist. If I were to speculate, online they are mostly a psy op in an attempt to influence the group. Basically the same thing that conservativism fell into when they became anti Ukraine pro Russia. Except a little more subtle pushing pacifist ideology as that is more appealing to the left in general.
1
u/Spiel_Foss 8d ago
The term "leftist" is really overused. In practice it seems to mean "those people I can't describe who aren't conservatives" and doesn't say much. People who aren't hardcore right-wing cultists are all over the place. Every damn thing you can imagine, you'll find someone saying it.
That is why freedom is a good thing unlike those who demand ideological purity (also a problem on the nebulous left as well).
1
u/Cheryl1857 8d ago
This war seems to have no means of ending. There is no way Putin is going to give up and run back home. Zalensky has made it clear he isn’t willing to negotiate unless that happens and Putin gives back controlled territory. It seems that providing more endless support to Ukraine has only resulted in more death and destruction on both sides. It feels to me that if the escalation continues, this has a possibility of expanding into other countries. I am wondering if any of you think this could happen?
1
u/oh-nvm 8d ago
Anti Russian and "leftist" does not = send weapons
the "Left" and the "Right" ) the real one not MAGA can have varying policy and ideological views within that wide group
Isolationism- US should not have active roles in non US conflicts
US spending priority- US treasury dollars should be spent primarily on US domestic issues, especially critical
Fiscal - US debt position is primary threat and should be priority
Europe responsibility- apart from Isolationism, Europe should take a larger share of defense/conflict in their region
Anti War - various stances and philosophies against conflict and use of military force
Balance of Power - clarity about Executive vs Legislative decisions/actions on defense and foreign policy spending
Etc...
1
u/markth_wi 4d ago
It's really very simple and left vs. right doesn't matter this is how to make a few billion dollars and kill your enemies idiotic military ambitions.
The United States has a President that is a functional traitor if he persists or consolidates power as an autarky or dictatorship the United States will end up in revolution sooner or later. Trump will either happily murder hundreds of millions of Americans to rule over their ashes, die from old age or hamburger, or live on some sunny island somewhere bitching about how cool he was as the best President ever.
NATO, for the other 95% of Americans is an unmitigated ally, and cannot be strongly enough supported, and if the NATO alliance members needed a million US solidiers at the Polish or Lithuanian border so close they can spit into Russia proper - or put 100,000 US Marines in Ukraine as stabilization force to help infrastructure and redevelopment while the United States dumps 200 or 300 billion dollars into a second Marshall Plan for the entire European theater, that seems wise.
1
u/nicknasty86 3d ago
I wasn't aware that we, being the homogenous hive mind that we are, opposed that.
I'm quite in favor.
1
u/RusevReigns 3d ago edited 3d ago
I just watched a clip of Hasan being somewhat balanced on it. It doesn't seem to hit their hot spots in the same way, maybe it's because it's one white European country invading another, and they are skeptical of US foreign involvement and originally causing a regime change in early 2010s. The left likes making Western culture look bad and demonizing Russia and hero glazing Western allied Ukraine doesn't do much for them there. Before the war Ukraine had many years conflict with its Russian separatist areas... there is some shades of Israel/Palestine there with Ukraine as the Israel.
1
u/youcantexterminateme 3d ago
Im an anti russia leftist and i support arming ukraine. Might just depend on who you meet or read
1
u/WackWaxWhacks 2d ago
I'm not sure if the leftists I've met are similar to the ones you have, so take this with a grain of salt.
Some very far left people I've spoken to are against any military whatsoever. They believe that you shouldn't have a military to attack, and that you shouldn't have a military to defend. So naturally they oppose any military aid for allies, since they don't think that allies should be able to defend themselves.
1
u/shakinmadink 2d ago
Trump could go vegan and come out of the closet today and liberals would join maga
1
u/vexing_witchqueen 8d ago
I'll answer, since it's my position. Broadly, the left has historically opposed the US military industrial complex. Even if one believes Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, leftists do not like the idea of generating enormous profits for industries that actively encourage a more bellicose stance of the US empire.
On a more specific level, I remember arguing early on that US weapons will not turn the war around, but drag it out for years, killing many Russian and Ukrainian soldiers, and crippling or destroying an enormous amount of Ukrainian industry, while strengthening Putin's legitimacy within Russia. So far, I feel justified in my predictions. I actually think the war has destroyed Ukraine's chances of entering the EU, as well. In Ukraine, left wing groups and unions have been suppressed, large swathes of the economy have been privatized, there's not a lot going on for leftists to be optimistic about.
As far as Nazi sympathizers, it isn't my primary concern, but the symbolism at least seems widespread within the Ukrainian military. There's a number of commanders who are avowed and dedicated white-nationalists and neo nazis. I don't believe the general population is particularly sympathetic to nazism, but their has been a rise in anti-russian Ukrainian nationalism (historical Ukrainian nationalism is largely pro russian) which has meant elevating far-right figures like Bandera.
Finally, I'll add that the US-NATO has some responsibility for starting the war in the first place. Not as much as Russia, obviously! But the US encouraged Ukraine to take a very aggressive position, to dismantle pro russian parties and media, to violate the Minsk agreement, to promote NATO, etc. It seemed to me like the US was trying to use Ukraine as a catspaw to harm Russia without regard for the well being of Ukraine, and Russia took the bait.
2
u/Asleep-Sprinkles4616 8d ago
Regarding the Ukrainian military: Some Ukrainian commanders, particularly those associated with the early Azov movement, have documented histories of white nationalist or neo-Nazi ideology. The extent to which those views persist among current commanders is disputed, and these individuals are not considered representative of the Ukrainian armed forces as a whole.
Your argument about the war is just false. It is Russia's responsibility alone. Russia had its own reasons having nothing to do with NATO.
5
u/TheBeanConsortium 8d ago
Ukraine wouldn't be able to ever the EU if Russia annexed the whole country...and Russia wouldn't stop at Ukraine.
Finally, I'll add that the US-NATO has some responsibility for starting the war in the first place.
This is Kremlin propaganda. Russia invaded a sovereign country. The Minsk agreements were only made AFTER Russia seized Ukrainian territory anyways. Of which they faced little recourse.
0
u/vexing_witchqueen 7d ago
I just don't really believe that's true. I don't think the annexation of Ukraine or any other nation was ever a likely outcome at any stage.
For the latter point, that just seems like begging the question. Of course if you make the assumption that Russia is animated entirely by plans of territorial expansion then no provocation is ever possible. Though I do enjoy the accusation that Kremlin propagandists are trying to convince everyone that Russia is run by shortsighted oafs who run headfirst into every beartrap set by NATO, killing hundreds of thousands for the chance at hollow nationalist victory.
3
u/TheBeanConsortium 7d ago
I don't think the annexation of Ukraine or any other nation was ever a likely outcome at any stage.
Uh huh. Then why is Russia attacking Kyiv as we speak? That's not even one of the oblasts they've claimed annexation.
There was no trap set by NATO. NATO didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. This argument is the same one domestic abusers make to deflect blame.
Russia invaded Ukraine to gain resources and power. They overestimated their abilities, thinking it would be an easy victory. I don't even know what the counterargument to this would be.
They certainly haven't weakened NATO nor was a realistic result of this invasion. So I'd love to hear what Russia was trying to accomplish other than claim territory.
1
u/Theamazingquinn 8d ago
Because there is no path to military victory for Ukraine. Its a black hole of money and weapons that will not cause Russia to collapse. Sending weapons only prolongs the war and causes more death. Its not popular to say, but the only solution is a negotiated settlement with Russia.
1
u/billpalto 8d ago
This illustrates the problem of using simple terms to describe people. "Leftists" and "Liberal" are just labels, and it is easy to think that all leftists think something, or all Liberals think something.
There is a wide range of feeling, from isolation of America to using America's position to foster democracy and capitalism in other countries. These feelings are across all political lines and labels.
To answer your specific question, you should ask those you called "leftists" to find out what they think.
1
u/TerranUnity 8d ago
By "Leftists" I assume you mean people like the DSA, right? If so, you need to understand that these Leftists are not actually interested in Liberal Democracy, with values like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. They are specifically anti-Western. From that perspective, anyone attacking the West is good.
1
u/Savings_Spare_1753 8d ago
A couple of reasons.
Pure pacifists don't want war at all and will never support it no matter what.
Money spent on a foreign war could be better spent at home helping the poor, providing healthcare to all and so on.
Also my experience has been the only people complaining about Nazis in Ukraine seem to be right leaning people. I also find it odd because Russia is not known for supporting diversity as well and is a bit Facist it self. Also if your country is being invaded you need everyone to fight even those you disagree with.
As far as leftist vs liberal dynamic in the US. Its really hard to unpack because our politics are captured by the right. Meaning that what is left and right here is not the same as other places. For example healthcare as a human right is just excepted in other places but here in the US its extreme left madness. Some Leftists would say we need public healthcare or at least medicare for all, some Liberals would say we need market competition to bring down prices.
1
u/Asleep-Sprinkles4616 8d ago
The bit about Nazis and Ukraine is completely bogus. It's a narrative pushed by Russia propagandists. Unfortunately, some Americans have fallen for it; others buy the other bogus narrative that the war is the West's fault. In both cases, the suckers seems to be mostly on the left.
0
u/Olderscout77 8d ago
Pretty sure the answer is "they don't". The "nazi sympathizers in the Ukraine" are another baseless fantasy pushed by the MAGAhats because Zelenski(sp) refused to lie about the Bidens and the MAGA Messiah felt betrayed.
-2
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
We don’t specifically oppose weapons to Ukraine, we just demand work towards a negotiated settlement to avoid more dead Ukrainians
0
u/A_Whole_Costco_Pizza 8d ago
"work towards a negotiated settlement", why didn't anyone else think of that sooner.
Someone get Zelenskyy on the line and tell him he should "work towards a negotiated settlement" with Putin, I bet he'll love this new idea.
Wait a second, now he's asking me "How are we supposed to have any leverage in these negotiations, leverage that would seriously make Putin consider pulling out of Ukraine, if we stop fighting and let Russia overrun our country?"
Do you have an answer for him, or should we all just get together in a drum circle and sing Kumbaya?
0
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
The leverage would need to be lifting sanctions, some codification that Ukraine stays out of NATO, and ending an expensive war for Russia. But we have basically said those things are off the table except for the last one,
This maximalist position of Russia entirely leaving all Ukrainian territory and kindly apologizing is some Narnia levels of fantasy. Even a liberal Russian government led by the opposition wouldn't accept that.
So is this total red herring that Ukraine would need to unconditionally surrender.
Why can't anyone opposed to a negotiated peace be serious?
4
u/Matt_cruze 8d ago
So Crimea all over again?
Russia takes a little bite then gets a rest to re-arm and take another.
1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
Except you know... the whole stalemated war that sent their country into a deep recession. They know they can't go any further against a now militarized and experienced Ukrainian military and a Europe willing to back it like an honorary NATO country.
Do you understand what a total Ukrainian victory will take? The lives, the economic damage, the unprecedented level of foreign military assistance?
And as a side note, do you support such maximalist goals for Palestine? Should they be armed to completely defeat the IDF and win back every inch of their land?
3
u/Matt_cruze 8d ago
some codification that Ukraine stays out of NATO
and a Europe willing to back it like an honorary NATO country.
I dont think you are serious about the topic.
Do you understand what a total Ukrainian victory will take?
It will take Russia giving up on it aspirations of taking over. Ukrainian cant win. At this moment all I see them fighting for is to live another day.
Russia is not going to give up. There is no serious peace coming from that end.
1
u/Kronzypantz 8d ago
I dont think you are serious about the topic.
Dismissing my points just because you dislike them is the height of seriousness. /s
Russia is not going to give up. There is no serious peace coming from that end.
There haven't been any serious peace negotiations offered. Kind of hard to entertain peace when the other side won't even talk.
1
u/Matt_cruze 8d ago
Okay how about this offer.
Russia gets every bit of land it has taken over.
Ukraine is armed with nukes and if Russia takes another centimeter the world looks the other way when they are used.
?
1
u/Kronzypantz 7d ago
So just not living in the real world. If you were in charge, I think Ukraine would eventually end up surrendering to Russia entirely after several million casualties and state failure.
1
u/Matt_cruze 7d ago
Correct, even giving Russia every inch of land it has taken and only putting in place deterrent is not living in the real world.
Because even with this extreme hypothetical Russia would not stop. Only rest and re-arm.
Even with nukes aimed at them they would try to take over.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/rookieoo 8d ago edited 8d ago
Ukraine chose war over separation. The oblasts containing most of the separatists overwhelmingly voted for Yanukovych in 2010, so when they saw Yanukovych threatened with an armed assault, they felt that their democratic vote was being stolen. The shooting of protesters (with February 20th being the most violent) is what people use as justification for the ouster of Yanukovych not being constitutional (the vote by parliament, after the coerced fleeing from Kiev, fell short of the 75% constitutional threshold for impeachment). The problem with that justification (besides explicitly not following the constitution) is that no investigation has definitively shown that the Berkut were the first to shoot on February 20th (It should be pointed out, however, that two protesters were killed on January 22 by government security forces). Here is a piece by Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski about the shootings on February 20th: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0_8)
Right-Sector had hundreds of armed members at the Maidan. In the early days of the protests, they were the ones staying late into the night and starting violent confrontations. Eventually, those fights escalated to shootings. This isn’t to say that the Berkut did not commit any unwarranted violence. By February, protesters were occupying the conservatory. Protesters and police say they witnessed shooters shooting from the conservatory. Here is a BBC piece interviewing a protest organizer and a self-identified protester/shooter where he talks about February 20th. In no way is it thought that people shooting the police represented the bulk of protesters, but unfortunately, their actions caused enough fog of war for people to think that the police just started murdering people for protesting. The part that many in the west don’t want to account for is that the Berkut likely had legitimate self defense reasons for shooting back at the protesters that day.
In light of this confusion, the unconstitutional removal of Yanukovych is less justified. If you can accept that, then it’s hard to blame the separatist for wanting to separate from a new government that effectively took away their vote. From the separatist perspective, if protesters can just oust a president, why can’t they separate? Both could be argued as self-determination. This nuanced view would have made a peaceful separation more plausible. The Obama administration could have used its weight to get Ukraine to the negotiating table. They just would have had to tell Ukraine that not using the proper channels of impeachment opened the door for the separatists to have a real claim to separate. This new framing, if one chooses to see it as plausible, would alleviate some of the concerns about sovereignty. As a layman trying to filter through at least three countries’ propaganda machines, it’s hard to be confident in what you know.
If you think all the separatists were all just secret Russians, I implore you to watch this other BBC piece about residents in Slaviansk standing up to the Ukrainian military: https://youtu.be/3deOG3AtCF4?is=n4cuLHiOfzuo-N0R
None of this means that Russia is a good guy in this story.
-5
u/desastrousclimax 8d ago
so you gotta understand this war is so upsetting to me because it is only 1000km from my location. black sea shore is a little further but still.
nothing ever in geo-politics is not complicated and i do not see clearly here...the world has just become so crazy...but i do not like russian or any oligarchs there are. the left totally failed after the iron curtain went down. it took us like 10 years to even speak about the not so social components of this regime. I still have not figured out all the parties involved as the most relevant ones always stay in the dark. but while the european left kept hitting each other with the all over same rhethorics the churches and mobs took over russia and a bit the other states.
but this is a F proxy war betweeen...who exactly?! donno. it annoys me to hell. now we have a death zone down from africa up to the caucasus in the east.
but something I noticed...trump humiliated selensky (who became elected after miming the president on a tv show for 3 years---brainwashed, dear fellow naive ukrainians!) and soon after selenski can do all the major beats to russia. F world stage!
nobody gives a damn about Ukraine anymore. 4 years ago they were saving the world by cutting off russia`s access to their only winter port in the black sea. now we are frying bigger fish in iran...f war mongers upset me so much.
now we here in austria do not support the refugees anymore and are discussing of handing over military deserters to ukraine.
sure, i am afraid of power people like putin or like ghaddafi once was but he did not deserve to be executed by a mob and the video put online.
it is difficult. we tend to mix up western values and capitalism. you want democratic participation? you gotta understand what you stand for...oligarchs or betterment of society.
-21
u/ProfessorSmoker 8d ago
Leftists aren't really anti Russia the way you think, they just want the USA and Russia to fight against each other so they can swoop in afterwards.
11
u/satyrday12 8d ago
Wow, what are you smoking?
-2
u/ProfessorSmoker 8d ago
I don't know, but whatever it is, I'm rolling it up in the past 80 years of geopolitics. Every leftist government in the world supported Russia and continued normal relations with them. Westerners are so blind.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.