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.
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.
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.
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”
Burgerland occupies Hawaii and part of Cuba just to name a couple of places, but sure it’s defending sovereignty of a nation where it overthrew the legitimate government in a violent coup. 🤡
And what would that be? I think i was pretty clear. I want russia to stay within their borders, for all I care they can oppress each other until the end of days. Though I would, unsurprisingly, not shed a tear if the country collapses. Same goes for the states.
I also already gave you a reason why I don’t believe it a worthwhile use of my time to engage with this literal whataboutism on a serious level.
whataboutism is a crybully whine about being held to any kind of standard. It’s a shield for you to act in bad faith and not be called on it. It lets you lie about Iraqis killing infants in respirators and act like a smug piece of shit denouncing people when they point out your side is bombing baby food factories. It proves that your words mean shit. You’re nothing but a vulgar nationalist. Morals are for moral victories. And it’s only ever time to talk about how evil the empire’s enemies are.
The states is literally running a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine, but yeah we’ll just ignore that important context because it doesn’t fit with the narrative you’re peddling right?
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.
thus used deadly violence to suppress any dissent from its Eastern half.
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.
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.
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
It’s a really convenient narrative based on the fallacy of homogenizing Ukraine. Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Either you’re intentionally spreading misinformation here, or you’re far too ignorant to discuss the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
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.
They don’t have purist politics, though. They support NATO and Genocide Joe. They have a xenophobic imperialist politics.
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.
Burgerland occupies Hawaii and part of Cuba just to name a couple of places, but sure it’s defending sovereignty of a nation where it overthrew the legitimate government in a violent coup. 🤡
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STATES GUYS, THE STATES
Fuck them, i have no love for them either.
Your selective attention betrays your actual position
And what would that be? I think i was pretty clear. I want russia to stay within their borders, for all I care they can oppress each other until the end of days. Though I would, unsurprisingly, not shed a tear if the country collapses. Same goes for the states.
I also already gave you a reason why I don’t believe it a worthwhile use of my time to engage with this literal whataboutism on a serious level.
whataboutism is a crybully whine about being held to any kind of standard. It’s a shield for you to act in bad faith and not be called on it. It lets you lie about Iraqis killing infants in respirators and act like a smug piece of shit denouncing people when they point out your side is bombing baby food factories. It proves that your words mean shit. You’re nothing but a vulgar nationalist. Morals are for moral victories. And it’s only ever time to talk about how evil the empire’s enemies are.
The states is literally running a proxy war against Russia using Ukraine, but yeah we’ll just ignore that important context because it doesn’t fit with the narrative you’re peddling right?
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.
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.
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.
Why would you lie about something that’s well documented, this isn’t reddit.
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 👉👈
It’s a really convenient narrative based on the fallacy of homogenizing Ukraine. Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here’s how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Either you’re intentionally spreading misinformation here, or you’re far too ignorant to discuss the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
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.