You mean to tell me that capitalists would do such a thing as funding multiple rival political parties?
Next thing I know you’ll be telling me they financed both sides of WW2.
So you agree that Ukraine’s government is a fascist NATO state that needs to be destroyed or at least de-militarized because it’s run by Nazi aligned financiers?
sitting on the blackened earth, surrounded by thousands of square miles of despoiled fields and ruined cities
“Well, it only cost 500,000 Ukrainian lives, a third of their population as emigrants, and all of their infrastructure and domestic industry, and we might have a huge insurgency on our hands, but it was totally worth it to depose a leader friendly with American and British reactionaries and replace him with a leader friendly to Russian reactionaries.”
Go back and read my original point: defending Donbass was morally defensible, attacking Ukraine proper was less so.
Crazy how artillery and rockets make it impossible to “defend” territory without going on offense to push them back and break supply lines
If NATO fascists pick an imperialist proxy fight, they should be defeated. I don’t want to hear lib both sides shit
defending Donbass was morally defensible, attacking Ukraine proper was less so.
There is absolutely no scenario in which Russia defends Donbass that the West would not construe as an invasion. The plan for years has been to arm Ukraine to fight Russia. The calculus Russia made was that if they’re going to get a whole war, they need to fight a whole war, and that means not limiting themselves to only operating in a tiny segment of Ukraine. That’s not a viable path to victory. Morally defensible or not, states are going to use the strategy that will succeed: a fantasy ideal scenario of only being involved in the Donbass could not be successful and so would not have happened. Any intervention in favor of people in the Donbass means a full war is necessary because of the inevitable geopolitical reaction
