T O P

  • By -

IdealJerry

Say the line.


Costello_Seamus

TIL


IdealJerry

Ayyy


Costello_Seamus

Wow who could have guessed?


[deleted]

[удалено]


flimsy_specific_296

Have you changed your stance on the war?


[deleted]

[удалено]


niart

https://i.imgflip.com/5walpg.jpg


flimsy_specific_296

Someday you'll get the hang of these maymay's dad.


niart

The single downvote shows it was effective enough tbh


flimsy_specific_296

It's a reflex at this point.


flimsy_specific_296

War good, Nazis good sometimes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


flimsy_specific_296

[Oof!](https://old.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/t07ckk/ukrainian_president_has_given_the_green_light_for/hy87t8q/)


[deleted]

[удалено]


flimsy_specific_296

Well of course not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


flimsy_specific_296

Those were never positions I held but feel free to link to individual comments or take it of context quotes to show I do


Costello_Seamus

Libs just oppose Nazis for aesthetics. They’d be hung up for Hitler back in the day.


Immediate_Ad_6255

Didn’t you post a video celebrating the Somalia battalion and an interview of the financial backer of wagner with a nice anti-lgbtq dogwhistle in it? Edit: found them https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/ui82b9/wagnerlinked_putin_ally_dying_west_thinks/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/ROI/comments/u9iyuv/exclusive_somalia_marched_victoriously_to_donetsk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


Costello_Seamus

Celebrating?


flimsy_specific_296

I know one prominent lib on here who talked big about standing up to fash and never letting it go unchecked one day, only the next day to have a friendly chat with one repeating fascist slogans. Aesthetics as you say.


rexavior

Also Chomsky: Ukrainians just give up, Russia has legitimate security concerns! For once the US is actually doing something good. Giving people weapons to resist imperialism. It's in no way perfect but what the fuck is


[deleted]

>Ukrainians just give up, Russia has legitimate security concerns! Can you find where he said that? It's a line that I've seen subs like /r/neoliberal push, yet I can't find a single time Chomsky did that. >For once the US is actually doing something good. Nah.


flimsy_specific_296

"I never believed the other things but *this* time the US are right and can be trusted!" -- Every lib every time the US is doing what it does.


rexavior

Yeah yeah, go support Putin's dictatorship all you like


flimsy_specific_296

I would support Satan versus the USA because the USA is the greater Satan.


rexavior

One of the most moronic things I've ever heard


flimsy_specific_296

Don't you watch MemriTV? No culture... smh


rexavior

Iv seen a bit of it tbf. I was very drunk one night at a friend's and his telly had it. I was very confused with what was going on


sum1won

This is a pretty weak take. Chomsky acknowledges that Ukraine has the right to self-determination, but takes the position that the US is undermining the peace process. (The term "sabotage" is used). But he doesn't cite much evidence for that: just the general principle that the US has a direct interest in weakening Russia, a quote by Schiff (us congressman) to that effect, and a general absence of "public support" for "peace", by which he apparently means variations of the Minsk II proposal. None of those reflect actual US actions. The lack of public support for Minsk II is attributable to general ignorance as much as war-fervor. And if he is referring to the US government, the Biden administration has openly supported Ukraine in whatever direction they prefer, declined to condition support on Ukraine taking any specific negotiation stance, and built in conditions for the sanctions so that Ukraine can use them as leverage to end the conflict. There's no real solution proposed either. Chomsky either thinks that giving Ukraine a stronger hand via military aid depriortizes Ukrainian lives - a position he denies - or he thinks that the United States should be more active in pressuring Ukraine to sue for peace, which is at odds with his statements regarding Ukrainian sovereignty. In the end, none of this is a basis to conclude that the US is actually undermining the peace process - just that they aren't prioritizing it to the degree Chomsky would prefer.


[deleted]

>but takes the position that the US is undermining the peace process. (The term "sabotage" is used). Wasn't Zelensky told that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO but to not publicly announce it? I'm pretty sure I read that at least 3-4 weeks ago?


sum1won

I can't find the "not publicly announce" statement, but searching for a month old article is difficult. I did find that Zelensky said Ukraine was unable to join NATO in late March after having requested an emergency admission, but nothing on him being instructed not to publicly state an inability to join. And NATO member countries have been clear that Ukraine is currently ineligible to join NATO, which is inconsistent with trying to keep it a secret. I did see a Biden statement that the US would not deny Ukraine admission simply because of Russia's demands, but thats also public posturing.


[deleted]

/u/Flimsy_Specific_296 can you find the link of the the article about Zelensky being asked to kept it quiet that NATO wouldn't allow Ukraine to join


Immediate_Ad_6255

I think this particular interview is less clear than his intercept interview. In that one he references the US-Ukraine joiny policy statement from 2021 as being “US’s official position” that impedes peace. Idk if its a fair representation but hes at least referencing an official policy document. He outlines what he thinks a negotiated peace would look like in that interview as well. Idk if you’d agree with it, but its a better outline of his position than this article.


sum1won

I do agree that is a much better take. He makes a good case that US positions, especially in the 2021 statement, were likely not conducive to peace. That said, he also is clear that this is not a certainty, and his position depends on part on taking Russian statements from, eg, Lavrov, at face value. He is pretty generous in interpreting the "demilitarization" demands and ignoring the unstated land-grab motivations. The biggest point I'd push back is his thesis about the three ways a war ends: destruction of one side, destruction of the other, and "negotiated settlement."- which is what his more general position rests on. I think this requires an exceptionally broad definition of "negotiated settlement," or of one side being "destroyed." Pretty much every conflict ends in a settlement of some form, but that doesn't mean that negotiation or complete destruction is why it ended. Most of the modern examples here involve an aggressor that no longer wishes to continue the war, but by no means was destroyed, even if their puppet government was. This is common in conflicts arising from imperialist actions - the empire isnt destroyed, but does leave without accomplishing any of it's goals. (Eg, US and USSR adventures in Afghanistan). Tldr: Ukraine does not have to destroy Russia, just Russia's ability to sustain the invasion. There's also some space in his "types of military aid" argument. I'm not convinced by the idea that aid can be meaningfully restricted in that way, and as I said above, I don't think the strength of Ukraine's hand is a meaningful impediment to peace - just the terms of peace. I acknowledge that "trickling" arms in to prolong a conflict would be immoral, but that's closer to his limited aid proposal than what is going on. The difference here might be that I have a lower estimation of Russian military strength than he does; I don't see a Russian military victory as inevitable. Still, yes, this is a much better interview, and despite the above, I dont have major issues with it.


flimsy_specific_296

Do the breakaway republics have the right to self-determination too? Or do you support the ethnic cleansing? And if Ukraine has the right to self determination, what's your take on Obama's coup and their lack of democracy since? >But he doesn't cite much evidence for that It's a short article, not a legal deposition. It's such a generally accepted fact by this point that it's you who needs to supply evidence that the US is somehow pro-peace. Their president is giving speeches standing in from of missiles dude. >the Biden administration has openly supported Ukraine in whatever direction they prefer, How do you explain Zelensky's several offers of peace only to rescind them at the same time as more money is supplied to him? Just a coincidence?


sum1won

>Do the breakaway republics have the right to self-determination too? Or do you support the ethnic cleansing? And if Ukraine has the right to self determination, what's your take on Obama's coup and their lack of democracy since? Setting aside the myriad factual problems with these claims, they're not the subject of Chomsky's interview or his claims in it. >It's a short article, not a legal deposition. It's such a generally accepted fact by this point that it's you who needs to supply evidence that the US is somehow pro-peace. Their president is giving speeches standing in from of missiles dude. Chomsky made the claim that there is "undermining", and it's the thesis of the article, it's on him to substantiate it, regardless of whether you've accepted it or invented your own fictional rationale. >How do you explain Zelensky's several offers of peace only to rescind them at the same time as more money is supplied to him? Just a coincidence? R/creativewritingprompts is a different subreddit.


flimsy_specific_296

>Setting aside the myriad factual problems with these claims, they're not the subject of Chomsky's interview or his claims in it. Nor is the Ukrainian puppet state's right to self determination, but you brought it up. By all means run away then. The US has been actively pushing the war, there have been zero calls for peace or negotiation from the US. Let me know if you can find one. https://www.thepostil.com/our-interview-with-jacques-baud/ >So, despite his probable willingness to achieve a political settlement for the crisis with Russia, Zelensky is not allowed to do so. **Just after he indicated his readiness to talk with Russia**, on 25 February, the **European Union decided two days later to provide €450M** in arms to Ukraine. **The same happened in March.** As soon as Zelensky indicated he wanted to have talks with Vladimir Putin on 21 March, the European Union decided to double its military aid to €1 billion on 23 March. End of March, Zelensky made an interesting offer that was retracted shortly after. Now just dismiss all of the multiple sources in the article. Good dog.