French president has faced a barrage of criticism, but said his comments were “weighed, thought through and measured.”
  • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    604·
    9 months ago

    Not sure while everyone suddently pretends it’s not acceptable.

    I am absolutely not keen to let troops go on the ground. However, these the military options need to be openly discussed without any taboo. Not only it tells Russia If you don’t find an agreement with Ukraine, things will escalate, but in a democracy, you need to have parliament and politicians in the discussions, we talk about kids dying for Kyiv. Is it worth-it ? I don’t know, which is why we need to have this discussion.

    • Hillock@feddit.deEnglish
      3·
      9 months ago

      There is no sudden change, not sending troop was the default stance for most people from day 1. And most politicians agreed with it, so there wasn’t much need to speak up against it.

      But now that Macron isn’t ruling it out, voices against it need to speak up.

    • tillimarleen@feddit.deEnglish
      613·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, let‘s discuss it.

      I think considering history and present one must be mad to come up with such an idea.

      On the other hand: We’re not even discussing finding an agreement. It’s a bit like a taboo, too.

      And: because we’re not winning, does it mean we have to escalate?

  • wildcherry@slrpnk.netEnglish
    9100·
    9 months ago

    Liberals want more war. It’s good for business. My city’s economy is going better thanks to ukrainian blood.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.deEnglish
      465·
      9 months ago

      While i share you criticism for “liberal” (particular in the American sense) warlust in general, we cannot look at the current situation without acknowledging the russian agression. And Putin is most certainly not a liberal.

      The spillage of blood is a valid criticism in so far, that the West was reluctant to support Ukraine properly, only tossing lifeline after lifeline, dragging the war out.

      • wildcherry@slrpnk.netEnglish
        471·
        9 months ago

        The NATO killed socialists politicians and empowered nazis (look up Gladio operation).

        No way I side with them.

        • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
          401·
          9 months ago

          If you’re so opposed to NATO, do you side with Russia then? Don’t they do the same, on a larger scale and more openly?

          Do you side with neither? Is siding with neither not accepting aggression with all its consequences?

          What’s your alternative? Your solution?

        • TooManyFoods@lemmy.worldEnglish
          211·
          9 months ago

          Empowered the nazis to take the sudetenland…wait no, we aren’t making that mistake again and that’s pissing you off. Russia is nazi Germany and Ukraine is czechoslovakia here. The parallels are so close it’s frightening

        • acargitzEnglish
          72·
          9 months ago

          So does Russia.

          You don’t need to side with any one imperialist. Just with the Russian anti war movement, i.e., the people most repressed in this current situation.

      • antidote101@lemmy.worldEnglish
        48·
        9 months ago

        The genocides of Capitalist Colonialism in the past 200 years have a far greater death toll than anything “leftists” have done. If you look at King Leopalds actions in the Congo, or Britain’s in India, and South Africa…

        I mean, Hitler didn’t just come up with the idea of having concentration camps. They were already a practice of Western and Colonial powers (first tried by The Spanish on Cuban farmers, the photos of piles of human bones from “The Reconcenstrados” are quite eye opening)… And the practice was almost always done with the enrichment of Capitalist business interests in mind.

        Capitalism has always gone hand in glove with the enrichment of the ruling classes at the cost of the lives of the poor, vulnerable, and dispossessed.

        Capitalism was the economic model of the Colonialism that came to define the world as we know it today.

        • JustMy2c@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          9 months ago

          You are focused on two centuries and more ago. I am talking about the last 20 years (upto 60)

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            9 months ago

            “I know I’m wrong, but let me twist the range I care about to make my braindead argument even remotely accurate”

            When you can’t win through facts, limit when you’re talking about. Might as well look into a career in statistics, might be less difficult to make bullshit arguments sound not-insane. All while ignoring the lives being destroyed globally by capitalism in the current era.