• Also you’re the only one talking about the US, here.

    They’re the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.

    There’s plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.

    The US gets brought up because it’s the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don’t get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn’t exist lmao.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in “Russian law”, not “international law”) incorporated parts of the defendant’s territory into itself.

      Also there’s exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can’t countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.

      • Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that.

        lmao, one sentence later. There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?

        why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is.

        sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it’s only viable because of US support right now.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?

          Kosovo’s secession wasn’t unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can’t be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.

          sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition,

          The US has stocks but they don’t have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.

          • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Kosovo’s secession wasn’t unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can’t be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.

            It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that’s what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only ‘cares’ about muslim life when it’s time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.

            There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.

            The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal

            The US has stocks but they don’t have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.

            Yes I know, that’s why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.