this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
25 points (72.7% liked)
Asklemmy
48072 readers
686 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
that hexbear supports the entirety of russia. a lot of times i hear stuff like "they don't actually care about queer people since they support russia", which is a gross oversimplification of their views. they hate russia's reactionary politics.
this misconception i think comes from the war in ukraine, in which if ukraine wins, they get to join nato. hexbear considers nato to be an imperialistic organisation that holds power towards a large portion of the world, and therefore, anything that opposes it should receive support, albeit critical.
"critical support" means supporting it critically. literally meaning don't agree with all of what they do/are/stand for. its impressive how focused the haters are on strawmen.
I think that has a good chunk of libs that see "Critical Support" and think that you support that soo much that is doing double damage...
A lot of people have a purist attitude to politics. "Critical support" is a vital part in understanding these positions of Hexbear and others, that one can support a side of a conflict and still be critical of it. Geo-politics isn't a simple binary. No two groups will perfectly align, but that doesn't mean they can't see mutual lines of benefit despite their disagreement. For example, just because someone supports Ukraine doesn't mean they have to defend everything their government does, such as supporting the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. It would be absurd to assert that! Similarly, it would be absurd to tell the communists still crying about 1989 that they support the entirety of the capitalist Russian Federation, the same RF that destroyed many of the gains the USSR made for both countries by enabling oligarchs to loot the place and plummet life expectancy.
God forbid a sovereign nation can choose its partners...
Always very annoying listening to dipshits for whom history began in 2022 lament on how Ukraine's sovereignty was violated and they should be allowed to align themselves without interference. Just as long as they don't align against the west in which case you perform a violent coup on the behalf of neo-nazis who begin campaigns of ethnic cleansing.
But that didn't happen doesn't matter.
There is no scenario where a country can unilaterally help themselves to the internationally recognized territory of another. That this simple truth is even in question to you entirely dismisses any point you are trying to make.
Russia has no claim in any way shape or form to any territory that is not currently internationally recognized as theirs, doesn't matter if the country was in the SU, Warsaw pact, russian imperial sphere, has russians living there, has russia feel "encroached upon", or any other imbecilic pretense apologists like to bring forward. It isn't theirs.
Usually when you post beneath a comment it's understood to be a reply to that comment, which doesn't seem to be the case here because you're completely talking around everything I said in the comment above.
Speaking of imbecilic though, what's your point at all? "You're not allowed to do the thing you did fait accompli because it's against the rules I made"
Baby brain.
I don't need to engage with you over this. We fundamentally disagree on a moral absolute.
Well can Eastern Ukraine?
Because as a "sovereign" nation, Ukraine is an amalgation nation of two bordering existing countries of which the partner organisation NATO's sole existence in question is to be enemies with one of the two bordering countries and thus used deadly violence to suppress any dissent from its Eastern half.
This is in stark contrast to the US full-scale invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and further invasions of Libya, Syria and Palestine which WERE sovereign nations, where no such dilemma took place.
Bush' full scale invasion of Iraq was based on lies.
Bush' full scale Afghanistan invasion was based on searching a fugitive.
The full scale bombardment of Lybia was because the US did not like Lybia's leader.
Same with Syria.
For Palestine, it's Israel that wants to genocide the country.
Don't forget their unprovoked, full scale bombardment of Yemen
Right. I would not call it unprovoked, but the full scale bombardment is all to support Israel's genocide of Palestinians.
The violence started when the Russian puppet president walked away from an EU trade deal that he literally campaigned on making, then cracked down on the resulting protests. Then an actual Russian created rebellion started. Calling that "suppressing dissent" is disingenuous as fuck.
Like it or not, the reality is that regions in the East of Ukraine were very much on record as supporting Yakunovych, and closer relations with Russia, for decades. There's only one reason the Minsk agreements fell through, and it's because they did not want to give eastern regions autonomous votes.
If the other half of your country coup'd your president, half-outlawed your language and ignored the political will of your half of the country, you might have a right to be upset and label that suppression.
The greatest lie the west ever convinced itself is that trump is a Russian puppet, how many levels of American bureaucracy has to be compromised to even allow for this? Hahaha
Yanukovych. Try to keep up.
"it's not suppressing descent if you accuse the people you're supressing of being Russian agents first"
Thank you for that insight, senator McCarthy.
Ukraine population: overwhelmingly supports trade with eu.
You: CIA backed color revolution!
Russian soldiers: taking geotagged selfies in Ukraine by the dozen, revealing overwhelming Russian military involvement in 2014.
You: Nuuu, putin wouwd nevewww ππ
Reality is whatever I want it to be
"Suppressing descent is fine if you claim the population 'overwhelmingly supports' you"
Why even bother with elections at that point? Just claim anybody who wouldn't vote for you is a RuSsIaN AgEnT
Support for eu trade was high enough that yanukovych campaigned on it. Are you saying that's not true?
Also are you saying contracted Russian soldiers weren't in luhansk and donetsk in 2014 and onward?
"Yanukoviych ran on trade with EU, therefor it's OK to violently suppress dissent" is certainly a take.
"Are you saying there aren't communist spies in America?" -SkyezOpen defending McCarthyism.
Misrepresenting my stance and refusing to engage with the points isn't the win you think it is.
Just because it's not framed in the most generous possible way doesn't make it a misrepresentation
Lol, who was it that taught shitlibs like you that anyone not immediately agreeing with them is equivalent to "refusing to engage with the points". I engaged with your points just fine, they're just bad points.
Mccarthyism is accusing with little or no evidence. There's piles of evidence of Russian involvement. Hand waving doesn't make it disappear.
There's piles of evidence of communist spies operating in America during the cold war too, mate.
So you're saying it's all fake?
Are you saying there were no communist spies in the US during the cold war?
Are you allergic to making hard statements? You accused me of mccarthyism, which involves accusing people with little to no evidence. There is evidence of 6,000+ Russian regulars in Ukraine in 2014. That's not "dissent," it's an invasion. I'm not saying there weren't genuine separatists in those regions, I'm saying it was hardly an organic movement.
"there were Russian operatives in Ukraine, therefore all dissent is illegitimate and can be crushed with lethal force."
If you can't understand how that is the same as justifying McCarthyism by saying their were communist spies in America, it's because you're being willfully obtuse.
You can leave out the 'puppet' in your statement, but keep Russian. Again, Ukraine is half-Russian, half-Polish. To say that a Ukrainian president is a puppet of either country is like saying that an Australian president is a British puppet, with the difference being that Australia is a settler colony while Ukraine is/was a border dispute solution.
Yanukovich walked away from the deal because the EU made too many demands that would have resulted in millions of job losses. It was a bad trade deal and so he walked away from it hoping for renegotiations of a deal that would not completely ruin his country.
"cracked down". What does that even mean? Who gets to decide a protest has been "cracked down"? Has anybody ever written about protests being "cracked down" during the Palestine liberation protests? Covid protests? Jan 6 2020 protests?
The insurgency, let's just use the teminology used when it happens in an Anglo nation shall we?, consisted of terrorist attacks by snipers that shot Ukrainian police officers dead and civilian protesters, who wanted their country to go into financial ruin, dead.
People that have come forward saying they were the instigators of this violence were neither part of the Ukrainian law enforcement, nor part of the protest groups, but foreign mercenaries who got paid or part of ultra-right factions. It's a more believable story than what the other side claims, where police officers who are trained to uphold stability mow down their own colleagues and civilians for stability's sake without refusal. It's more believable as the first story doesn't have snipers shooting their own snipers dead just to create chaos. That wouldn't make any sense. People do not tend to kill people of their own group, not just because those are their friends they can rely on, but also puts them in an extremely vulnerable paranoid position of themselves being next. How would you know when to stop? How would you know you're not on the list? Would you be killed from orders of their higher ups? Collaegues out for revenge of their friends?
And all of this doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was banning all things related Russia after the coup and mowing down indepedence voters at the ballot station in the Donbass region.