• zkikiz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation

    • btbt [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.

      If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.

      • zkikiz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!

      • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bro I’ll craft apologisms for the USSR occasionally but the idea that they were a non-interventionist polity is fucking ridiculous. The USSR tried to overthrow like half of the governments in the world.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone

      Are you saying who started the war isn’t relevant? Why would you not want to determine this to have a full picture of the situation?

      • zkikiz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else’s homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn’t make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that “starts a war” is the one that rolls their tanks first.