ah yeah that makes sense then, for a moment I wondered if I was imagining that being there
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ben & Jerry's cofounder Ben Cohen has donated over $1 million to an organisation aimed at ending military support for Ukraine
- Thread starter The_Iceman2288
- Start date
Ukraine already memed about this
View: https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1629423289700433923
View: https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1617586515579633686
View: https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1629423289700433923
View: https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1617586515579633686
Oof the top reply to this post is spot on when it comes to the topic of this thread
View: https://twitter.com/m_solosh/status/1638151759313895433?s=20
I "get" why (on a very high level) that argument is made, but it always feels so morally vacuous and inconsistent. We're either now also trying to rationalize and justify past American atrocities in a moral race to the bottom, or it needs to be condemned regardless of the actors involved.
It needs to be, "It was fucked up then and is fucked up now", not, "Let's never criticize it since others have done it without accountability". I don't even know how you'd successfully build the dialogue towards accountability of past events if you can't call it out in the present. You just close the door on it entirely.
Tankies defend authoritarian socialist states. This guy thinks "the U.S. should use its power to negotiate an end to the war, not prolong the death and destruction by supplying more weapons".
Yeah it's Lula with a dumb Nintendo hat, as communist as one gets.
There's no negotiating though? The negotiation is for Russia to just leave, they keep prolonging the conflict.
We already tried diplomacy and negociations, but you can't negociate with people like Putin.
I get it, I'm quoting what Ben Cohen said verbatim. Still doesn't make him a tankie, that's my original point.
not only. tankies also have a historical loyalty to modern kremlin that they support blindly as a connection to the past. there are entire left parties in europe and across the world that kiss russia's ass because of this, and because they see the kremlin as anti-west
they've tried to negotiate, you can't negotiate with kremlin, and the fact that this isn't a war caused by a conflict and responsibility of both with their own objectives, this is purely an invasion by Russia, Ukraine wasn't attacking Russia, Ukraine didn't want anything to do with Russia or take any land, absolutely nothing, except be closer to rest of Europe. So there's literally no peace that can exist, the peace is that Russia fucks off. The tankies see that Ukraine having its own self-determination and being closer to Europe and the "west" as being bad, that's why they use talking points that support the kremlin.
it should be obvious that tankie definition has expanded over time, just like nazi definition has, people use nazi to encompass a lot more than it used to. so is tankie. tankie used today includes a lot of dumb ass shit that comes from mostly far-left groups
That piece of shit in your avatar literally blamed Ukraine for the war, said it's their fault they got invaded, which is what almost all these far-left and left politicians and parties in Europe say as well. It's because they still see the Kremlin in the socialist/communist historical lense/connection
also, the literal word tankie originates from when the communists in the eastern bloc would mass murder civilians by rolling their tanks over them. that's a socialist and communist tradition, not only in Europe, China did it too
Last edited:
The thing is people on the north hemisphere will always have some trouble understanding the South's stance on some issues, especially war. Our country's foreign policy is based on non-intervention, self-determination, international cooperation and the peaceful settlement of conflicts as guiding principles. Brazil as a geopolitical power has always been a neutral player.
And sometimes you have to realize that you can't always peacefully settle conflicts and neutrality is nothing more than silently siding with the agressor.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/DWGQLMJLWVPCHJ5RLUF5HGATBE.jpg)
Brazil's Lula says Zelenskiy 'as responsible as Putin' for Ukraine war
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Russia never should have invaded Ukraine, but he believes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is as much to blame for the war as Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
www.reuters.com
🤡
What Lula said and his position is definitely not neutral though, it's by far pro-Kremlin whether actively or by effect, his approach to this situation would be more neutral if he shut up and him and his diplomats not be involved at all. The ceasefire stuff they were pushing in February was also extremely stupid, a ceasefire which would only aid Russia in the current state of a war, you don't call for a ceasefire in this state when a country is defending against a foreign invader and the invading army would benefit from a ceasefire where they can regroup and ease supply/production efforts back in Russia. This isn't a civil war or similar conflict, Ukraine isn't even fighting in Russia or has any interest in taking the war beyond their borders, so ceasefire is complete nonsense and a 100% aid to russia. That's not neutral diplomacy
Why is anyone even talking about "negotiations", Cohen and his organization just want to give Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter.
They are like the very definition of a piece of shit tankie.
They are like the very definition of a piece of shit tankie.
It's not trouble understanding. Your leader has an absolutely shit take on the war and exposed himself as a clown when it comes to it. Ukraine being invaded isn't any of these:
non-intervention, self-determination, international cooperation and the peaceful settlement of conflicts
So let's put it in perspective:
Non-intervention: Russia has been sending troops and equipment under the guise of civil unrest into Ukraine to destabilize the country since 2014.
Self Determination: Ukraine wanted to forge economic ties with the EU to bolster its economic security rather than hitch their wagon to an energy state in Russia. Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.
International cooperation and peaceful settlement: Ukraine signed the Minsk Agreements to prevent conflict with Russia and abided by its tenants and still Russia has renewed their invasion with aim of annexing the county and eliminating Ukrainian existence.
So tell me, an apparent ignorant Northern Hemisphere inhabitant, according these guiding principles that you laid out, which is the one that justifies Ukraine taking equal blame in the conflict? Why should both parties be treated as equal belligerents even though the simple facts that show one party alone is the reason there is conflict in the first place?
Ukraine tried negotiating after 2014 and all it did was allow Russia to prepare and execute the next phase of their goal in 2022. Ceding parts of Ukraine only prolongs the conflict until Russia feels like they are ready to take the rest of the country.
Let's say, you had a much larger neighboring country that decided they wanted to invade and take yours one day. They attempt to achieve this by blowing up your cities and raping/executing your people. The further they advance into your country, the more cities they level, and the more people they genocide.
They figure, you should not exist as a people, and instead should be absorbed into them. They do this by deporting hundreds of thousands of children from the land they've taken from you, back into their own country.
You are to blame when you fight back? Those who provide support for the country being brutalized are wrong?
Are you that fucking stupid?
Last edited:
I respect quite a bit of Lula's ideals, but his belief that Ukraine is to blame for its current predicament is willfully ignorant at best.
If appeasing invaders and hostile parties for peace is the solution, perhaps Brazil should just hand the U.S a portion of its territory already now, since obviously there's no point in delaying resolution and think of all the people that would suffer, clearly Brazil can't win in that scenario.
also - Lula's view does not reflect the opinions of Brazil at large. I work with multiple Brazilians who also like Lula but can see this neutrality push only serves to extend suffering, short of Lula maybe asking Putin to recall his army, but it's never the aggressors fault I guess.
Damn, the Vietnam War really was the NVA's fault for fightinf back I guess. Same for Iraq/Afghanistan.
Something that your leader should have realized: shutting up is free.
Even an anodyne statement about wanting all parties to abide by international humanitarian law and offering priority to Ukrainian refugees while not committing to entering the conflict would be… fine.
But instead the guy in your avatar openly both-sides this invasion. Why?
Lula is a fucking idiot. I feel so sorry for Brazil that the choice was between him and the Trump-wannabe.
That laugh from at the end translates to "what a fucking stupid question" lol
Brazil's Lula says Zelenskiy 'as responsible as Putin' for Ukraine war
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Russia never should have invaded Ukraine, but he believes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is as much to blame for the war as Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
🤡
Classic Southern Hemisphere foreign policy that us Northern Hemispherers would never understand... or something.
being neutral in a war of aggression is taking the side of the aggressor. And I say that as a citizen of a country that sadly also still deludes itself into neutrality being anything more
The wild part about that quote is that history is chock full of examples of mad men losing.
the idea that Brazil's "neutrality" is about anything other than maintaining ties with a friendly power that isn't of any particular threat to them personally is an absolute joke. the global south just like the north are rational actors who act primarily based on what they see as their own self interest. Morality only comes into play once self interest is not in play in a decision. the only difference is the relative power dynamics and histories that shape what they see as self interest, but no country on earth is making these decisions out of pure altruism
When there is an active war going on, a shift to diplomacy means abandoning the country you were supporting to fend for itself. Its an argument for inaction in the face of unrelenting aggression.
nah don't you see, it is cleary something someone from the northern hemisphere could never understand, much deeper than that
/s
yep and Brasil is part of BRICS, also why South Africa allowed Russian military ships to moor and do exercises with them, let a oligarch yacht in, etc, and same going on with China and their relationship with Russia, also in BRICS. Same with India's stance on the war too.. All BRICS countries, and all those countries are extremely corrupt, nothing coming from them regarding this conflict can ever be taken in good faith
1 hour 50 in is a good look at the people who go hard for this stuff on the left
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZyIjBxxpTY
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZyIjBxxpTY
The notion that some of the tankies or whatever they are called actually low-key loathe former USSR states for the fall of USSR tracks quite a bit imo
Like it makes more intuitive sense to me than mere indifference in some cases.
Yeah, it tracks damn well. The Baltics tend to get tankies mad af.
Or at least they were the go to before Ukraine in my experience
But then why don't they hate Russia most of all? I suppose the theory is that Russia is still secretly the USSR, whereas other former USSR states betrayed the USSR. Not sure how that works but I'm sure someone can explain it to us.
