Never knew this was a thing. I just choose a random instance when I joined Lemmy.

Got banned recently for being critical about “Apple & China relationship” and sourced a few articles in privacy channel or whatever its called.

I didn’t know why I was banned because according to their rules and didn’t break any rules, so I messaged a few mods for a response.

“Anyone who dares to say anything that disagrees with the official western line is a tankie” - you, basically. Anyway, all anyone has to do is look at the upvotes and downvotes to see who really is flooding .world and it’s not the tankies like you claim with your victim complex post.

I’m trying, but I don’t understand what this has to do with Ukraine NATO membership.

I chose whatever I am because it was the first one I saw when I made the jump

Tankies are never in shambles. If Ukraine doesn’t join NATO they’ll say “See, NATO was just using Ukraine” and if Ukraine joins NATO they’ll say “See, NATO is expanding east again”. Tankies are never wrong when it comes to believing their own delusions.

I mean, I’ve seen tankies spin anything to fit their narrative, I’m sure they’ll continue to do so. Remember, anything resembling support of Ukraine is an act of aggression against Russia, and tantamount to unilaterally starting WWIII.

Tankies in disarray!

I just have to wonder what the state of the NATO coalition is going to be if Trump takes office a second time.

As an American I think that would all be reasonable…if the official US position was that Mexico has no right to exist, the Mexican people should be forcibly integrated into our society as 2nd class citizens, and the US Army was in the process of a “peacekeeping operation” in Mexico to carry all this out.

For all our flaws, we respect the borders of our neighbors and don’t have irridentist aspirations that belong in the 19th century. Russia is the aggressor here, and they have demonstrated that they have little interest in global peace or human rights, only increasing their sphere of influence.

Continually rolling over for thugs because it’s what avoids nuclear conflict will only lead to a global order based on thuggery, and it likely won’t even avoid nuclear conflict in the end.

I think your downvotes are because your “reversal” is not particularly valid, not because your opinion is contrary.

As others have said, it would need the US to first be invading Mexico before Russia or other countries start propping Mexico up militarily.

Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro’s revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I’ve always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.

It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it’s extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn’t.

For your hypothetical scenario to make more sense, the US would have had to annex Baja California just a decade prior, then straight up have gone to forward invasion war with Mexico to annex more, bombing the shit out of the country including children’s hospitals.

In that scenario, fuck yes Mexico would be justified in finding allies to help them maintain sovereignty and protect themselves.

That’s what happens when nations invade one another.

Just putinists apologist nonsense. Just gaslighting the world … they backed us into a corner… they made us deny they have the right to exist as a country, invade them and commit atrocities against their population.

The call is coming from inside the house…

No threat to Russia except free prosperous Ukranians living across the Russian border, who speak russian and have deep ties to Russian population. This by far is the biggest threat to Putin’s health, hence the war.

Oh and the fact that Russia sold gas to Europe though Ukraine and needed to pay. But now Ukraine found a lot of gas in the Donbas also did not help.

It’s all on Russia. Maybe if they weren’t terrible neighbors to neighboring countries, this wouldn’t happen. NATO doesn’t force countries to join, nor does it seek other countries to join. If the country wants to be a part of NATO, they have to apply. I’m tired of seeing this tired talking point.

Yeah if the US had invaded Mexico maybe it would be understandable if they sought Russian help. Your whole comment ignores the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign country in 2014 and continues to kill people every day there trying to take it over. There’s no arguing with bullies like Putin, we learned this lesson with Hitler. Burying them in the ground is better than appeasing them.

That’s not an opinion. That’s the lack of it. Plus a few grams of whataboutism. You’re a victim of Russian propaganda agents.

find sensible solutions

For example? How do you do that with terrorists?

False premise. “A military pact against”.

While it looks that way because Russia is a military invader and overall aggressor, NATO is a defensive pact. If the US decided to attack someone to be a dick, it doesn’t draw NATO in automatically…but if someone attacked a NATO member obligations trigger and everyone dogpiles the foolish attacker. Yes Russia was the boogieman use to get people to join, but it was not “against” Russia exclusively, it was against aggressors.

I get the cuban missile crisis parallel too. But this would be more like Russia and Mexico doing a “we will protect you if the US actually attacks” agreement and the US would just be annoyed with Russian bases that close and halt trade with Mexico as whiney punishment or some such. However, the US doesn’t seem to want to conquer Mexico, so it doesn’t parallel well to reality. Cuba was “let’s put offensive capabilities next to you during a war (cold…but it was a war)” that is self defense and very different.

No matter what, there will be hostile borders around the world and deterrence is all we can do to keep it quiet. Ukraine war would have never happened if it was in NATO, and the US woulda just let Russia sleep despite the strategic advantage of having Ukraine right there. The US has plenty of other horrible shit it does, we don’t conquer with military might.

I also know the story about how Putin tried to play nice with the world and got shit on and not let into the club fully, and this is part of him acting out for that. There is some very small legitimacy, or at least a logic to that claim…but you just don’t take countries anymore, especially if it makes you a threat to the EU.

Sucking Russia off is not a contrary opinion. I’m not going to entertain anyone saying that maybe Russia isnt in the wrong for Invading Ukraine, and maybe the countries providing military support for Ukraine to defend itself are in the wrong for maybe making Russia feel threatened. America does a lot of shit wrong, supporting Ukraine is not one of them in any way.

edit: added accidentally missed half of sentence

If the US invaded Mexico, I would fully support any and every country that supported Mexico in pretty much any way.

Wild that you call out posturing with violence, but seem fine to forgive actual violence.

This happened once with the Cuban crisis, and humanity still exists thanks to the level headedness of JFK. I’m not sure the situation is comparable as, afaik, no new nukes have been stationed in Europe after the end of the cold war. And it is useful to remind that nobody would have felt the need to join NATO after the end of cold war if they hadn’t felt threatened.

The US would react with diplomatic protests and perhaps sanctions. If Russia had acted that way with Ukraine it would have been their right.

Removed by mod

How would the US react if the Russians supported Mexico in joining a military pact against the US, so that the Russians could build military bases and install short range nuclear weapons in Mexico and point then at the US?

This a convoluted scenario, as why would they do this in the first place? The US, as big of an asshole as it is, is not invading Mexico. Mexico is not the least bit worried about it.

Ukraine was very worried about Russia invading them, for years, for legitimate reasons. And what does Russia do to alleviate those fears? Repeatedly threaten them, then actually invade.

A gun happy neighbor you are complicated friends with is very different than a gun happy neighbor who is repeatedly saying they want your house. If the situation afterwards feels unfair, well, that’s Russia’s fault for getting there in the first place.

And if the U.S actually postured itself for invading Mexico, for heavens sake, I would want them to arm themselves to the teeth.

We already know how we treat Cuba even without them installing a military base. Direct invasion and cutting it off from the world. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Ok, you’re right, let’s give putain all the territories he wants.

Where do you draw the line? If you are happy to give up Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war, where do you stop? Can he take all of Eastern Europe? What about the whole of Europe? Everywhere except your country?

Putin is a bully, and you stand up to bullies.

Besides, he might have the most nukes, but given the maintenance costs for 5,000+ of them and the corruption in Russia, most of them probably won’t work.

Yes, appease the bully, clearly the best strategy.

By allowing Russia to expand it further provokes the west to use nuclear weapons. Huh, guess we’re at a deadlock. I guess Russia could give back what they stole.

Ah yes, appeasement. A historically winning strategy.

I think it’s the other way around: Russia is aggressive but a show of strength would deter it. In other words, Russia isn’t desperate to avoid a confrontation with the West. Russia wants a confrontation with the West, and it needs to know that that’s a confrontation it won’t win. (China also needs to know that, and it’s watching the situation in Ukraine closely.)

That’s not to say that we should seek out such a confrontation with the goal of intimidating Russia. A high-stakes situation like that does have the risk of escalating out of control. However, the situation in Ukraine is already such a confrontation, initiated by Russia due to its belief that the West is weak. It would have been much better to avoid creating such a belief, but now is too late for that. The best we can do is to avoid reinforcing it and, from a pragmatic perspective, it helps that most of the risk is borne by Ukraine.

In short, the nightmare scenario is Russia invading a NATO country like one of the Baltic states. Then either there is a war between nuclear powers immediately or Western unity collapses and a war between nuclear powers becomes much more likely in the near future. Our best chance of avoiding that is to stop Russia in Ukraine, where we can do so indirectly.

Edit: Also people shouldn’t be down-voting you. You’re making a valid point that needs to be addressed.

That’s funny because Ukraine gave up their nukes and Russia signed the agreement to defend their territorial integrity. Russia’s feelings are irrelevant and if they want to nuke us all so they can get out of a contract they signed, that’s their problem.

Another thing is you can appease someone completely in reality and people like Vladimir Putin will just turn around and say it’s still not enough.

I wonder who fucking started the escalations?

Removed by mod

You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.

Yeah, right after Russia invades one country, capturing and killing men, women, and children while threatening other countries. Weird…