Yes, that is the justification most Americans use; western chauvinism tells them that no matter how bad they are, the other places are worse. How many times on Lemmy do you see people say “America bad, but China or Russia or Iran would be worse (therefore we’re justified in facilitating massive bloodshed)?”
It’s used to justify bombing Yemen, support the genocide in Palestine, escalating the proxy war against Russia, and starting one against China.
You can get a social democrat to acknowledge that every conflict America has supported since WWII has made make the world worse, and they’ll still insist that this time, it’s different.
I for one wouldn’t have used unrest as a chance to do a coup. But if I did, I wouldn’t have planned who to install in what positions over an unsecure line.
And so, Ukraine would have stayed a democracy that is more economically aligned with Russia, and Russia wouldn’t have invaded.
I for one, wouldn’t have spent 40 years trying to overthrow a proletarian democracy, eventually succeeding in sponsoring a coup.
So Ukraine and Russia wouldn’t be right wing nationalist nations and would instead be part of a progressive federation.
The path where America is not in control and making the decisions for the rest of the world doesn’t even enter the liberalist mind. The inability to imagine an alternative world order is heavily ingrained and maintained by fear of “the other.”
The portions of Ukraine that Western Ukraine was shelling before the invasion.
The lines have hardly moved in a year, despite thousands more dead and millions more displaced. Every bomb we send is a bad day for someone, statistically mostly civilians. To send more bombs is to sacrifice more people, for the same geopolitical outcome.
Yes, that is the justification most Americans use; western chauvinism tells them that no matter how bad they are, the other places are worse. How many times on Lemmy do you see people say “America bad, but China or Russia or Iran would be worse (therefore we’re justified in facilitating massive bloodshed)?”
I’ve seen the former part of that sentiment on here, but I haven’t seen anyone use it as justification to go to war
It’s used to justify bombing Yemen, support the genocide in Palestine, escalating the proxy war against Russia, and starting one against China.
You can get a social democrat to acknowledge that every conflict America has supported since WWII has made make the world worse, and they’ll still insist that this time, it’s different.
And half of lemmy are worse than that.
So, comrade, how much of Ukraine should surrender for about 6 years of “peace” with Russia?
deleted by creator
I for one wouldn’t have used unrest as a chance to do a coup. But if I did, I wouldn’t have planned who to install in what positions over an unsecure line.
And so, Ukraine would have stayed a democracy that is more economically aligned with Russia, and Russia wouldn’t have invaded.
I for one, wouldn’t have spent 40 years trying to overthrow a proletarian democracy, eventually succeeding in sponsoring a coup.
So Ukraine and Russia wouldn’t be right wing nationalist nations and would instead be part of a progressive federation.
The path where America is not in control and making the decisions for the rest of the world doesn’t even enter the liberalist mind. The inability to imagine an alternative world order is heavily ingrained and maintained by fear of “the other.”
deleted by creator
The portions of Ukraine that Western Ukraine was shelling before the invasion.
The lines have hardly moved in a year, despite thousands more dead and millions more displaced. Every bomb we send is a bad day for someone, statistically mostly civilians. To send more bombs is to sacrifice more people, for the same geopolitical outcome.