this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
25 points (72.7% liked)
Asklemmy
48083 readers
672 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
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.