What I have learned:
- Russia has already won the Ukraine war
- Which NATO started
- A lot of people in the West think that Ukraine should surrender
- Also Ukraine was the world’s main provider of CSAM
- Also Ukraine is exploited by the West but if they can unite with Russia then their economy and everything else will finally be alright
It’s literally like a bizarro world and everyone is over there agreeing with it. I’m genuinely confused by, who even are these people (what is the mixture of Russian bots / Russian-aligned ordinary people / confused Westerners / some other explanation.)
If this is a honest question I will try to give some honest context, I do not represent a Hexbear, so these are just some views that I have that make me sceptical of the narrative that currently exists.
After the cold war there were calls to establish a common security structure including Russia to try to ensure peace in Europe. Instead the US (with pressure from past satellite states of Moscow, Poland, Czechia, etc) chose to maintain NATO and on top of that invite everybody except Russia, many foreign policy experts already warned that this was a recipe for war, but wether it was malice or incompetence they were ignored.
Fast forward to 2008 the US suggests inviting Ukraine (and Georgia) to NATO, and Russia makes extremely clear that this would not happen, that this was a red line for them. Now you can disagree with Russias right to say anything about the military alliances of its neighbours, but the fact that Russia is a military regional power with nukes is something you need to deal with. Again wether it was incompetence or malice is hard to say but the next 14 years are basically a chain of escalatory actions by the US combined with a series of stronger and stronger warnings from Russia that this would lead to war.
During the events themselves it is hard to judge as a civilian what exactly is happening in geopolitics, the US has a very clear trackrecord of treat inflation or simply lying about its true intentions or the truth on the ground. It could of course be that this is one of those rare cases where the US are truly the Good Guys™️ or it could be that this is a ploy to weaken a rival with the only price being the destruction of a country they don’t care about and the death of hundreds of thousands of military age males they don’t care about.
For OP: This above is the Russian talking points light, presented as a reasonable timeline. It glances over so much important stuff.
Hexbear is a group of useful idiots steered by the Russian MOD. Anything that destabilized their adversaries is good. This als means feeding a wide array of victim blaming, feeding competing narratives and generally making people question if there actually is a truth.
Shut up about NATO expansion
And about the NATO thing, what do you think would happen if Mexico and Canada tried to join a military alliance with China?
I’m not victim blaming, I’m blaming the US and Russia for playing cynical geopolitical games and destroying a country along the way.
If Canada or Mexico wanted to make ties with China that’s their perogative.
America doesn’t get to dictate the affairs of it’s neighbors.
I wouldn’t dedicate my free time to screeching ‘death to Canada’ and being a dipshit to everyone who doesn’t share a carbon copy of my faulty perspective.
I’m not asking what you want the US to do, I’m asking what do you think the US would do.
This is such destructive rhetoric, everything you disagree with is Russian propaganda. Yes of course Russia is trying to influence western opinion with war propaganda, because that is what countries at war do. But the US has shown so clearly in the past that they can not be trusted to be the single source of truth, because spoiler alert: they are also a country (de facto) at war.
No, even remotely trying to provide justification for the Russian campaign of terror and atrocities against Ukraine is destructive rhetoric.
RUSSIA IS THE BAD GUY. No if’s and’s or but’s about it. There was no existential threat to Russia, there was/is no plan to invade Russia, there are no Nazis ruling Ukraine.
Every day we see in the newspapers new examples of the barbarism the Russians show towards their Ukranian neighbors. Russia steals children, actively targets civilians, civilian infrastructure and even first responders. It armed terrorists with an advanced Anti air system and shot down a passenger airliner… the list of bad guy things is endless.
And the whole “disagreeing with the narrative because there is more to it” is just propagating Russian talking points and helping them muddy the water. Russia joining NATO would have been the death of nato. And in turn the structure for keeping Russia in check would have been gone.
All former Soviet states lived under the brutality of Moscow and know first hand that they cannot be trusted. It is good they where believed.
The US has done everything you (correctly) accuse Russia of in Iraq, Vietnam, and South America (either directly or via proxies). What does that make the US?
Imperialist states do imperialist things, the least we can do (coming from a European perspective) is to try to maintain peace by a combination of international law and pragmatic ad hock peace deals where international law is unattainable.
So it’s equally as bad or it’s okay.
What point are you making with this whataboutism? Two things can be true at once ffs.
This is not a whataboutism, I’m saying two imperial states are destroying a country as part of their power politics, as a counter argument to Russia are the bad guys and the US can be trusted.
Ad hoc peace deal with Russia where had, yet here we are.
And whataboutiam doesn’t help here. I’m not defending the US im arguing Ukraines right to sovereignty.
You are defending US foreign policy.
Sure does. Like the 8-year long shelling civilians campaign that Ukraine was undertaking on Donetsk and Luhansk, solely on the basis that it wanted to deny them a vote on their own autonomy.
Where else other than hexbear or Russian state media were you able to find such egregiously biased views?
John Mearsheimer among others, were do you get your views from?
Who are the others?
I think John Mearshimer’s analysis of the situation is extremely accurate on the whole, but what he says is very different from what you’re saying.
From which respected academic did you get the idea that the West was provoking Russia on purpose by expanding to include countries Russia was attacking or threatening (which presumably then weren’t themselves the driving force wanting NATO or EU membership)?
I’m not trying to represent all of Hexbear, my views differ from the norm (just as yours seems to differ from the lemmy.world norm).
Second, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m certain on everything. It just seems very clear to me that the current narrative is dangerous and risks leading to escalation beyond Ukraine and has already caused a lot of suffering, (I think in this I echo Mearsheimers views, see the recent interview on the Spectators Americano podcast). Wether it was intentional or accidental I purposely left open in my original comment because, like I said, it’s very hard to judge at this point. But given the US trackrecord it’s probably a healthy dosis of both overconfidence in their power as well as cynical intent.
To me it’s hard to imagine that after Russia put their army on the border and explicitly said, Ukraine stays neutral or war, that the US wasn’t aware of the consequences. Clearly Ukrainian lives were not on the forefront of their decision making process at that point. So then the question is what was.
But these are my personal opinions, and I’m happy to be convinced otherwise (but calling me a Russian bot is not very convincing I find).
I would say it’s all the shelling and rocket attacks and bombings, not so much the narrative.
In general I think trying to talk and understand the world is not a hostile act. If you’re trying to deliberately distort honest conversation to justify something, then that’s a bad thing, but just saying that some sincere narrative right or wrong can be a dangerous thing all on its own, I don’t agree with.
Bro
What if I put a couple of my friends on the border of your house, and explicitly said, hey if you try to do X Y or Z then I might have to kill you. What’s your reaction? What’s fair in that scenario? If you ask for some allies to come over because you plan on doing X Y and Z anyway and fuck the border-standers, does it all of a sudden become the allies’ fault that any of that happened? What you’re saying is just a very weird allocation of blame to me.
Like I say, what Mearsheimer says on this issue actually makes a good deal of sense to me, but what you’re saying here is very different from what he says about it, as far as I know. I think one of the critical issues is whether the whole thing was a “ploy” by the West – he definitely doesn’t think that, that I’m aware of. Where did you get that idea? It definitely doesn’t seem to me that fighting between Russia and various former-USSR states needed any additional help in order to develop, although I’m sure the US is happy it’s happening and happy to help it go badly for Russia.
I think it’s relevant what the Ukrainians think. Are you saying that rejecting Russia’s orders for what they were and were not allowed to do, knowing that Russia might attack them as a result, was not their decision but someone else’s? What do you think they think about it?
Here’s a little excerpt, somewhat related, from “Sky Above Kharkiv” by Serhiy Zhadan:
"And I’d like to make another point. I was rather skeptical of the current government. I was struck by one particular thing. The elections of 2019 brought a lot of young people to power – not my peers (I’m a far cry from being young) but a bunch of political youngsters who didn’t belong to dozens of parties or hadn’t worked for all kinds of shady cabinets of ministers. ‘But why do these young people,’ I thought, ‘act like old functionaries from the Kuchma era? Where did their childish urge to make a quick buck and flaunt it come from? Why aren’t they trying to be different?’ Thing is, I personally had the chance to do what I still consider rather constructive, useful things with a lot of them – everyone from ministers to mayors and governors. Nonetheless, I’d look toward the Parliament building and ask myself, ‘Why aren’t you trying to be different?’
“Now [in wartime] with the naked eye you can see them trying to be different. Advisers, speakers, ministers, negotiators, officers, mayors, and commanders – these forty-year-old boys and girls whose generation has been dealt the cruel lot of having to stand up for their country. And this applies no less (and possibly even more) to the millions of soliders, volunteer fighters, and just regular people pitching in, people shedding the swampy legacy of the twentieth century, like mud falling off new, yet well-chosen combat boots. Young Ukrainian men and women – that’s who this war of annihilation is being waged against. And then, in contrast, are the heads of Russia, Belarus, America, and Germany. The first two are old delusional geezers from the past century who look a lot like old Russian armored vehicles, but they’re old. And they’re Russian, which, in itself, does little to recommend a vehicle. Then there are the latter two – they’re cautious office clerks, retired capitulators who aren’t brave enough to admit that they, too, are involved in what’s going on.”
What do you think started, and kept WWI going, narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder. With the result that an entire generation of boys and men was gone for basically nothing.
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I’m sorry. If your response is to call the police, there is no police in the world of international politics, you have to play the hand you’re dealt.
And in the case of Ukraine this was sadly a very bad hand, that is why I don’t blame Ukraine for much. You could of course blame Ukraine for being lured by the power of the US, and that they could thus safely ignore dire warnings from Russia. But as they say, with great power comes great responsibility, so I choose to put the blame at the hands of Russia and the US.
I mean… not really. Surely, at the time, the “dangerous” narrative was anything against the war. To me, allowing a freer flow of ideas would have helped to resolve the war sooner, and deciding that certain narratives were dangerous and should be stayed away from (leading to difficulty in understanding what was happening) was a factor that made things worse, not better. No?
I am glad that you are not involved in the foreign policy of either Ukraine or any country I care about. There is realism, sure; the world is not always a comic book where being righteous is enough. Then, also, there is cowardice, and then beyond that there is saying that someone else who is rejecting cowardice is to be blamed (along with anyone who gives them assistance in standing up) for danger they find themselves in as a result.
Ukraine seems likely to be able to hold on to a significant chunk of their territory and self determination, after deciding to pay a heavy heavy price for it, in homes and cities and money and lives and anything else. You can take your condescending stuff about realism and whose decision that was, and what kind of lives under Russian rule they should be resigning themselves to instead, and shove it up your ass.
You seem to conflate questioning a narrative with banning a narrative, I have the intent nor the means. I value being able to have an open discussion on topics as important as war, especially based on substance rather than resorting to personal insults and such.
that line of reasoning essentially makes every single US invasion ok. and every single oppression okay. Because threats work and fuck you for being weaker.
Accepting how the world works is not the same as saying it’s moral.
If someone threatens to shoot you, you saying it’s immoral is not a practical defense, unless there is some kind of higher power like a justice system with a police to enforce it. But the entire point of international politics is that such a force does not exist, just countries with interests.
Mearsheimer, Morgenthau and similar “political realists” are the main reason why the world is in such a messy state.
They dehumanise entire societies into poker chips to be traded between the superpowers, disregard their national interests and ignore history and non-european states when convenient.
You switch cause and effect, realism tries to describe the word as is and not as it should be and then bases policies on that. Of course basing your policies on realism changes the world, but US policy has mostly been based on liberalism for the last 30 years, and yet the world is still made up of poker chips and superpowers.
Of course the policies you choose based on realist principles can be used to increase your power as a country (and thus use poker chips cynically) or it can be used to build a prosperous and peaceful world (given the limitations of the natural anarchic state of international politics).
As a Dutch person I accept that the US can decide to turn the Netherlands into a nuclear testing ground whenever it wants and there is nothing we can do about that, but given this fact we should still try to create a peaceful world.