Also, what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders, especially after doing a coup against a neighbouring state?

[+] tired_fedora@lemmy.ml -9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Alright, here goes the sarcasm. I must've forgot the NATO invasion of Crimea in 2014. Sorry 'bout that. Wasn't there this whole story of NATO stripping the voting rights of Crimean folks who wanted to join Russia just before the impromptu post-hoc referendum to justify that invasion? I must've also forgot about the NATO invasion of Georgia in 2008, darn! But I'm pretty sure I remember the invasion of Donbas and Luhansk in 2022 quite right.

As for your second argument:

what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders

Great question! Now do the same for the Baltics or Sweden. You'll be surprised how nervous smaller countries get when one of the strongest armies in the world regularly executes larger and larger maneuvers at their borders and in their airspace. They might even think about joining a defensive military alliance. If Russia doesn't want that, then it was not the brightest move to double down and invade Ukraine.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 days ago

defensive military alliance

classic

Yeah really defensive, the best defense is the attack.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I must've forgot the NATO invasion of Crimea in 2014

Not sure what you are even trying to imply here, considering that Russia's actions in Crimea (a part of Ukraine that tried to secede from Ukraine before, and the population of which overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia, according to studies conducted by NATO) came after and as a response to NATO's aggression (including NATO doing a coup against the Ukrainian government - which you are completely fine with).

If you were trying to claim that the invaders of Iraq (at least twice), Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Palestine, and many other places are not the most prolific invaders in the world, then you were just being extremely silly.

Wasn't there this whole story of NATO stripping the voting rights of Crimean folks who wanted to join Russia just before the impromptu post-hoc referendum to justify that invasion?

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply, considering that the population of Crimea was very anti-NATO and did try to secede from Ukraine as early as 1990s, and NATO's studies also concluded that the population of Crimea wanted to join Russia.
But you don't think that Crimea deserves self-determination, do you?

I must've also forgot about the NATO invasion of Georgia in 2008, darn!

You mean when Georgia attacked South Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Do tell how that situation should have been handled.

Great question! Now do the same for the Baltics or Sweden.

You didn't answer the question.
Also, not sure what I should be doing for the nazi chihuahuas that are literally a part of the most prolific invader in the world (and literally organise parades in honour of SS troops).

You'll be surprised how nervous smaller countries get when one of the strongest armies in the world regularly executes larger and larger maneuvers at their borders and in their airspace.

Well, they should probably stop invading everywhere, then, and pay reparations to the people of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine, and many other places.
Really bizarre to imply that they are some innocent victims of "one of the strongest armies in the world" when they are a part of the polity with the most expensive and vile military in the world.
Also bizarre to pretend as if they couldn't, for example, ally with Russia if they needed protection from somebody. There was literally nothing preventing that (other than their greed and racism).

They might even think about joining a defensive military alliance.

It's cute how you pretend that the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocidaires of Palestine are a "defensive alliance".
NATO leadership itself admits that it's just there to do whatever the US tells them to do.

If Russia doesn't want that, then it was not the brightest move to double down and invade Ukraine.

NATO leadership has nobody but itself to blame for pushing for war with Russia (by their own admission) and then being beaten.

[–] tired_fedora@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I feel like our interpretation of events differs enough not to really warrant further discussion. Nevertheless, here are the responses to your requests:

Most importantly, I don't think we will agree on whether a revolution or a coup happened in 2014 Ukraine. Of note here is that 73% of the parliament voted the president out of office, which gives this "coup" a pretty decent democratic basis.
In addition to that fundamental disagreement, I think we are circling a hen-an-egg problem here, because I can always bring up some earlier aggression from Russia / the Soviet Union and then you can bring up some earlier aggression by NATO. They were in a cold war: There's plenty. Fact is, both the invasion of 2014 and of 2022 were illegal by international law and by the very agreements that Russia had signed before.
By all statistics which I'm aware of you are correct that most Crimeans wanted to join Russia in 2014. To make sure that was also reflected in the polls, multiple records of manipulation have been recorded by government and non-government organizations, the most severe IMO being to take away people's identity documents. Various sources linked on the wiki, e.g., this one. The referendum was also held after Russian troops invaded the peninsula, whch is definitely not okay: Irrespective of the outcome of a referendum, Sweden could not just seize St. Petersburg and then hold a referendum there; that'd be absurd. And all this is irrespective of the genuinely difficult question whether such a referendum is binding. Neither the Ukrainian constitution nor the international agreements of 2003 (co-signed by Russia) contain such a mechanism. Secession is also not considered a general right by international law and it would probably lead to chaos if border regions constantly changed hands. However, I understand the semi-normative appeal of a referendum and I concede that most Crimeans are probably alright with being Russian for now. You may contrast the parliamentary decision I quote further up with this referendum and you are right to do so. Legally speaking, one of them just changed the government of an existing state while the other one moved the borders; the latter of which is much more invasive to the international order. The first one also asked the representatives of that whole country (alas, did not ask every single person in that country), while the second one only asked the region in question.
This also leads to my next point: It seems that most of Ukrainians want to associate with Europe. If Russia is so big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with, why invade Ukraine in 2022? The same argument works for the occupied part of Georgia. Or for the regions predominantly settled by Crimean Tartars.
And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason, it also applies to the Kurds. However, I don't think bringing up the middle east contributes much to the topic at hand. Are you saying Russia was protecting countries in the middle east by carrying out military maneuvers over the Swedish airspace? Sweden and the Baltics didn't really play an instrumental part in any of these campaigns. Did the US illegally invade some countries? Oh for sure! And they totally did pull NATO countries into some of these campaigns (e.g., Operation Enduring freedom). But how does that justify regularly threatening the Baltics or Sweden (the latter of which even used to be neutral before its chagrined association with NATO due to growing pressure from the East)?
Are you suggesting the Baltics and Sweden should've allied with Russia to prevent them from being invaded by Russia? (Edit 2: That worked our really well for the democratic movement in Belarus... /s).
In my reading of history, the Baltics and Sweden suffered both under Nazi occupation and Soviet occupation and both are commemorated with much pain and suffering in those countries; Nazi occupation of these countries, although a terrible part of history, is not really related to this discussion, though.
Finishing with a petty little point on the side: Russia is not fighting NATO right now. Russia is fighting Ukraine, which receives weapons from NATO. With NATO boots on the ground, this conflict would look very different very quickly. However, NATO is demonstrating that, at least for now, it remains a defensive alliance that only springs into action when a member state is attacked by a foreign state adversary (or in the case of Operation Enduring freedom "a foreign state adversary").

Edit: Adding this for completeness: I brought up Sweden and the Baltics because the second strongest military in the world (Russia) has much less reason of being afraid of the 26th strongest military (Sweden), than Sweden has a reason to be afraid vice versa. Even saying that Russia was afraid of the USA by proxy doesn't change this much, A) because the US is not in Sweden, they could just project through Sweden, while Russia could actually march at Sweden if it wanted to, but more importantly, B) because number 2 vs number 1 is a much less drastic difference than number 2 vs number 26. Ranking linked here. Before 2022, everyone thought Russia could just overrun its neighbor states (like Ukraine) whenever it wanted to and this drove many of them into the arms of NATO, which has yet to invade a member state.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Most importantly, I don't think we will agree on whether a revolution or a coup happened in 2014 Ukraine.

So, if NATO boasts about spending billions on subjugating Ukraine and semi-openly picks politicians in Ukraine, that's not a coup? All while things play out without any noticeable distinction from all the other coups (and similar actions) attempted/carried out by NATO?
Do you also claim that NATO did not try a coup in Iran recently (before proceeding to whine that Iran successfully suppressed it)?

Of note here is that 73% of the parliament voted the president out of office, which gives this "coup" a pretty decent democratic basis.

A "decent democratic basis" is when the ruling class decides to oust whoever isn't subservient to NATO, then?
Going to note that, when even NATO's own studies say that the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, you are opposed to their wishes being respected.

I think we are circling a hen-an-egg problem here, because I can always bring up some earlier aggression from Russia / the Soviet Union and then you can bring up some earlier aggression by NATO.

Firstly, it is telling that you imply that the USSR's anti-colonial actions were "aggression", while things like the ongoing NATO's genocide of Palestine, the Belgian atrocities in Congo, the invasions of Iraq weren't/aren't.
Secondly, what "earlier aggression from Russia" can you point to?
Thirdly, the rest of the world has a right to defend itself against the most prolific invader in the world. "The rest of the world" does not magically exclude Russia.
Fourthly, if you cared about aggression, you would be against Ukraine siding with, for example, Poland and Germany - which have actually been aggressors against Ukraine in recent history.

Fact is, both the invasion of 2014 and of 2022 were illegal by international law and by the very agreements that Russia had signed before.

Ah, so "legal" invasions and atrocities like what your empire did to Iraq, is doing to Iran, etc. are fine, then? Care to explain who decides what invasions are "legal", then?

The referendum was also held after Russian troops invaded the peninsula, whch is definitely not okay

So, your complaint here is that the referendum didn't conform to liberal democratic norms (as alleged by the propaganda machine of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan), rather than that it was somehow not actually reflective of the wishes of the people?
Do you also have the same complaints about Ukraine not holding elections, about NATO states blatantly overturning election results, and about NATO states intervening in elections? Why are you not being vocal about that?

Legally speaking, one of them just changed the government of an existing state while the other one moved the borders; the latter of which is much more invasive to the international order.

Nobody in their right mind cares about imaginary lines in the sand or about the "international order" (where NATO gets to invade the rest of the world with no repercussions).

It seems that most of Ukrainians want to associate with Europe.

Most Germans also wanted to associate with the government of NSDAP.
Just because they want to does not mean that their desire to repeatedly invade Iraq should be respected and somehow not considered an act of aggression.

If Russia is so big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with, why invade Ukraine in 2022?

I don't claim that Russia is "big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with". I was pointing out about your very selective support for "self-determination".

The actual reason was very obviously NATO repeatedly acting against its promises to not expand eastward, invading everywhere, and self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia.
As for whether or not Russia's response is bad, I'd like to repeat my question: what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders, especially after doing a coup against a neighbouring state?

The same argument works for the occupied part of Georgia. Or for the regions predominantly settled by Crimean Tartars.

Not sure what you think should have happened with South Ossetia. Do you think that Georgia should have kept killing people there?
As for the Crimean Tatars, NATO's complaints about them not having their own state is very obviously just to drum up support for using them the way NATO has been using Kurds and other ethnic groups to harm its enemies.

And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason

Ah yes, "for some reason". That "some reason" is the fact that that is where the most prominent recent invasions and atrocities of your empire have been happening.
By the way, Ukraine took/takes part in those, as well.

And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason, it also applies to the Kurds

Yeah, NATO uses Kurds in order to attack its enemies there, like how it did in Syria, where the Kurdish policies prevented Syria from accessing its own oil, and proceeded to just join the DAESH government in Syria when the latter conquered Syria.

Are you saying Russia was protecting countries in the middle east by carrying out military maneuvers over the Swedish airspace?

Russia was quite literally protecting Syria against your empire before you conquered it. Not sure why you are even asking this question.
Also, you are implying that the Swedish airspace is so sacred to you that it shouldn't be breached to help non-white people resist your empire.

Sweden and the Baltics didn't really play an instrumental part in any of these campaigns.

Sweden took part in, for example, bombing civilian shelters in Iraq.
Also, please stop whitewashing the nazis. They did take part in those. They do take part in those. They will never stop taking part in those unless stopped.
Also, being in this "defensive" alliance does mean that they promise to help whoever does engage in those atrocities if somebody attacks them, so even if they didn't participate in those things directly (they did), they would at the very least be making action against the direct actors harder.

But how does that justify regularly threatening the Baltics or Sweden (the latter of which even used to be neutral before its chagrined association with NATO due to growing pressure from the East)?

"Neutral" is when you collaborate with one side against all the others?
Also, why do you keep trying to paint literal SS troop worshippers and colonial subjugators of the world as if they are the victims? You are hell-bent on punishing Russia for resisting you on the grounds that Russia invaded Ukraine, but excuse their invasions as if that's perfectly fine.

Are you suggesting the Baltics and Sweden should've allied with Russia to prevent them from being invaded by Russia?

No, I pointed that out as an option. Russia hasn't engaged in military hostilities with its neighbours outside of the cases where it was either Georgia attacking Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetians, or NATO's aggression via Ukraine.

In my reading of history, the Baltics and Sweden suffered both under Nazi occupation

The Baltics today basically worship nazi Germany and complain about the USSR resisting Germany.

... and Soviet occupation

No, being prevented from plundering Africa and Asia is not "suffering under occupation".
This "suffering under Soviet occupation" nonsense is especially wild when we consider that they had some of the highest living standards in the world (while today they keep plundering the Global South).

Russia is not fighting NATO right now

It quite literally is. Not sure why you are trying to pretend otherwise, as if NATO hasn't been taking action against Russia, such as sending weapons and personnel to fight Russia.

With NATO boots on the ground, this conflict would look very different very quickly

NATO boots at least used to be "on the ground".

However, NATO is demonstrating that, at least for now, it remains a defensive alliance that only springs into action when a member state is attacked by a foreign state adversary

NATO has literally invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, is carrying out a genocide in Palestine, and self-admittedly started a war against Russia (which it has been losing), and is comprised of colonial metropoles and some semi-peripheral states. Why do you keep pretending that it's a "defensive" alliance?

I brought up Sweden and the Baltics because the second strongest military in the world (Russia) has much less reason of being afraid of the 26th strongest military (Sweden), than Sweden has a reason to be afraid vice versa

Ok? Invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan don't get to whine about being threatened.
Furthermore, Russia, for all its flaws, has so far not attacked anybody unprovoked (unlike Sweden, and unlike the rest of NATO), and Sweden is not even sharing any significant borders with Russia. So it has even less of a claim to being threatened.

Even saying that Russia was afraid of the USA by proxy doesn't change this much, A) because the US is not in Sweden, they could just project through Sweden, while Russia could actually march at Sweden if it wanted to, but more importantly, B) because number 2 vs number 1 is a much less drastic difference than number 2 vs number 26

These arguments are rather silly.
Again, invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan do not get to complain about being threatened. Also, joining their gang is an act of aggression, and the rest of the world does have every right to retaliate (and stop this plight upon the world).

Before 2022, everyone thought Russia could just overrun its neighbor states (like Ukraine) whenever it wanted to and this drove many of them into the arms of NATO, which has yet to invade a member state.

That's a silly reason for joining Adolf Heusinger's organisation.

[–] tired_fedora@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Things we agree on:

The Nazis did horrible things in Europe before and during WW2.
The USA invaded or otherwise waged war against multiple countries in the middle east and that is not okay. Other NATO countries supported these actions. Note: My original comment was about wheat shipments from Ukraine, which is why I had focused on Ukraine and Eastern Europe in general.
Not holding elections in Ukraine, while legal by their constitution and not uncommon in countries at all out war, does not look great.

Things I hope we can agree on:

Ethnic and cultural groups (like the Kurds, the Crimean Tartars, the Palestinians, the Crimean Russians, and many others) have a right to self-determination. This is often expressed as a right to statehood, although that is complicated by the benefits of self-sufficiency that larger states can provide. This tension is not always easy to dissolve. This is related to the next point:
The post WW2 international order has outlined a legal framework to prevent conflict on that scale from happening again, which is the legal framework I am referencing in a number of posts above and comments below. While flawed (e.g., broad veto powers of some countries in the security council), this framework is a great achievement and should carry weight, as it's the best we currently have to determining when countries can use military force and when not.
Since World War 2 any Central and Eastern European country basically had a choice of associating with either Russia or the USA, both for economic and security considerations (choice is often very euphemistic here: Many of the Eastern European Countries were conquered during WW2 and then had a long struggle towards being allowed that choice). Many of these countries chose the USA over Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. The reasons are certainly complex, but among them may be a preference of the populace of these countries for a capitalist liberal democracy over an autocratic oligarchy with or without the face of communism (pre/post 1990). Associating with one of these blocks has led these countries to support or at the very least not principally oppose military actions of at the very least questionable legality and morality, especially in the Middle East.
Sweden held no colonies since 1878, and even those were rather few. Some Baltic territory was colonized by Imperial Germany. Of any European countries, these may have among the least "blood on their hands" regarding the exploitation of the Global South.
The Swedish airspace is not sacrosanct. You had asked about Russian aggression in recent history. I brought up these maneuvers over Swedish airspace (as well as attacking undersea cables and most likely the Nordstream 2 pipeline), the invasion of Georgia in 2008 (as well as in the early 1990s), the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and of the rest of Ukraine in 2022. This goes in addition to invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan to fight local uprisings or independence movements (going back to that tricky question of self-determination), as well as supplying arms and expertise to various proxies during the Cold War. If "recent history" goes back as far as WW2, this also includes the invasion of Poland, as well as the occupation of most of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WW2.
Sweden used to be neutral, non-aligned, and non-aggressive until some time between the late 1990s and early 2000s. It only joined NATO in 2024, a process that really gathered steam only after and because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The major public protests against the regime in Iran before the war were largely carried by the populace and were beaten down with disproportionate violence. This does not change the fact that opening war against Iran by the US was an act of aggression that was almost certainly not in accordance with international law.

Things we don't agree on (written from my perspective):

NATO has no combat troops in Ukraine by its own and by third party accounts. Small numbers of non-combat troops have been deployed, e.g., for training Ukrainian soldiers, though the vast majority of these is not in Ukraine.
While the political far-right is sadly growing in many European countries, most European countries are still functioning democracies. In fact, European countries are consistently ranked among the most democratic countries in the world. The memory of the terrible crimes and victims of Nazi Germany in WW2 is preserved. Only fringe Neo-Nazi movements glorify the perpetrators.
Georgia did not start the Russo-Georgian war of 2008. You point to attacks on Russian "peace keepers". I can equally point to articles saying South-Ossetian separatists, using weapons supplied by Russia, started the escalation by attacking Georgian villages. One can then also ask why there should even be Russian "peace keepers" on Georgian territory. That's a euphemistic way of saying Georgia fought against occupying forces, a view I'm sure you'll agree on when it's about the 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example.
The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was not a coup led by foreign powers. At least between 2014 and 2022, Ukrainian democracy was working fairly well. It was definitely more free, fair, and just, than Russian elections, to name but one example.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Ethnic and cultural groups (like the Kurds, the Crimean Tartars, the Palestinians, the Crimean Russians, and many others) have a right to self-determination. This is often expressed as a right to statehood

I am unconvinced that statehood should be driven by ethnic nationalism (at least, in the absence of dire situations). Why should it?
This is simply a propagandistic cudgel used by NATO to justify things like attacking Syria, or Demanding that Russia return Crimea to Ukrainian occupation, or calling for the resubjugation of Hong Kong by the European powers. You never hear calls for France to relinquish control over, say, Bretagne and Corsica.
(Also, you later show that you do not actually support self-determination when it does not suit your empire.)

The post WW2 international order has outlined a legal framework to prevent conflict on that scale from happening again

It hasn't. Your empire hasn't even been at peace since then for any sort of prolonged period of time. You are always engaged in an invasion somewhere, be it in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Why are you even trying to imply as if NATO has ever tried to prevent itself from attacking somebody, or as if it has a history of honouring agreements.

this framework is a great achievement and should carry weight, as it's the best we currently have to determining when countries can use military force and when not

We do not need a legal document to determine that colonialism is one of the most vile things that your empire has been engaging in. Hell, you agree that nazi Germany is bad, and all it did differently is do in Europe, against white people, what NATO (and its predecessor polities) have been doing to the rest of the world.

choice is often very euphemistic here: Many of the Eastern European Countries were conquered during WW2 and then had a long struggle towards being allowed that choice

I hope you reflect in the future on how you assert that the enemies of your empire "conquer" other countries, but have a "choice" when the oligarchs just decide to join the most vile gang in the world (to plunder Africa and Asia first and foremost).
I am also going to note that you value the ability of the ruling class to make choices such as deciding to rob the rest of the world over the living standards of the working class achieved without atrocities.

Many of these countries chose the USA over Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union

Many countries - such as Poland, France, and the British Empire - also chose nazi Germany over allying with the USSR. Why should the choices of their ruling classes be a priori held as good?

The reasons are certainly complex, but among them may be a preference of the populace of these countries for a capitalist liberal democracy over an autocratic oligarchy with or without the face of communism (pre/post 1990)

"Capitalist liberal democracy" is "autocratic oligarchy". Not sure why you are trying to claim these are two distinct things. Do you think that, for example, Russia is not liberal, i.e. that it isn't a pro-capitalist state with liberal representative democratic practices like the pointless presidential elections?

Sweden held no colonies since 1878

Sweden is currently in a gang of states that collectively own (and/or are settler-)colonies of all types - classic old-type colonies, genocidal settler-colonies, neocolonies.

Of any European countries, these may have among the least "blood on their hands" regarding the exploitation of the Global South

Yeah, nah. You are engaging in whitewashing a state that has participated in bombing civilian shelters to plunder Iraq (among other things).

The Swedish airspace is not sacrosanct

I agree. So, if, for example, Russia breaches it to defend Syria from your empire, Russia is in the right.

I brought up these maneuvers over Swedish airspace

So, let's get this straight, - NATO (which Sweden has always been a de facto member of) - attacks Syria, followed by Russia aiding Syria against NATO. And you claim that this is an act of Russian aggression?

as well as attacking undersea cables

Not even your leadership thinks that Russia was involved.

and most likely the Nordstream 2 pipeline

This is an incredibly bizarre accusation for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Germany is currently trying to sentence a suspect that is Ukrainian.
What you are asserting here is that Russia destroyed its own pipeline that it was using to finance itself because ???, meanwhile both the US and Denmark were threatening to destroy Nordstream 2 shortly prior, and their ships were in the vicinity also shortly before the event in question.

the invasion of Georgia in 2008

So, Georgia attacks Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, as well as South Ossetians, then Russia responds, but it is somehow Russian aggression?
Also, you are quite literally now going back on your "self-determination" thing, as you claim that South Ossetians should not have a right for self-determination, and should have instead been slaughtered by Georgian troops.
Also, you still haven't given me an answer - how should Russia have handled the situation?

as well as in the early 1990s

You mean the case where Russia allegedly helped Abkhazia against the attack by Georgian troops? "Aggression", again.

the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and of the rest of Ukraine in 2022

After NATO did a coup in Ukraine as yet another (self-admitted) act of aggression against Russia. So, again, not an act of Russian aggression.
Also, you still haven't answered my question - what should Russia have done in response to NATO's actions here?

This goes in addition to invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan to fight local uprisings or independence movements

Firstly, these "independence movements" were NATO-backed nazis and the mujahideen (weird how consistently you support such, but do not support independence movements against your empire, isn't it? If you were consistent, you would have sided with LNR, DNR, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc., and not with Ukraine and Georgia). It's not at all a secret at this point that the USSR's actions were at least somewhat correct (I do think that they should have acted sooner in Afghanistan).
Secondly, you very obviously are not informed about the relevant history of Afghanistan. The USSR was literally acting at the request of the liberation movement that got into power a few years prior, after NATO invaded it. You again have it completely backwards.
Thirdly, this is the USSR, and not Russia. But, I guess, you are going to keep mixing them up, aren't you?

as well as supplying arms and expertise to various proxies during the Cold War

Their "proxies" were literally liberation/independence movements. They literally fought against colonial subjugation by your empire.
You keep talking about self-determination as if it is something that you support, but, as we can see, you actually just support NATO's proxies, and abhor the actual independence movements. You are, whether you like to admit it or not, on the side of colonialism.

If "recent history" goes back as far as WW2, this also includes the invasion of Poland

Please tell me, what Polish cities did the USSR invade?
Also, I am going to note that you are seemingly fine with Poland invading Czechoslovakia together with Germany, with Poland invading Belarus and Ukraine, with Poland setting up a concentration camp in Belarus, and would have preferred that Germany took Polish-occupied Ukraine and Belarus.

as well as the occupation of most of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WW2

Notably, you are fine with NATO's occupation of a lot of Eastern Europe today, as well as with NATO's colonial subjugation of the vast majority of the world.

Sweden used to be neutral, non-aligned, and non-aggressive

Nope.
Apologies for a lazy Wikipedia-based retort, but none of the European powers were neutral in the relevant period of time.

Why are you even so obsessed with trying to claim that a state that was a major beneficiary of colonialism all this time was somehow neutral?

It only joined NATO in 2024, a process that really gathered steam only after and because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

It has always been a de facto member, and NATO was the aggressor in the conflict with Russia, admittedly deliberately pushing for war with Russia.

The major public protests against the regime in Iran before the war were largely carried by the populace and were beaten down with disproportionate violence.

Ah, so you do believe this silly claim even after it has been confirmed that that was a NATO operation, that they were supplied equipment by NATO (by the way, Iran was seemingly able to precisely target your troops because they breached internet blockages using your Starlink), and that the violence was not disproportionate (and was not at the scale that your empire seems to have made you believe).
It's a bit amusing how you just believe every word uttered by the people who sold you on the WMDs in Iraq.

NATO has no combat troops in Ukraine

Not since your troops - such as the reddit brigades - got beaten there, then.

Small numbers of non-combat troops have been deployed, e.g., for training Ukrainian soldiers

So, we agree, then, that Ukraine is yet another NATO proxy and cannot be claimed to not be affiliated with NATO?

1/2

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

While the political far-right is sadly growing in many European countries, most European countries are still functioning democracies

If you want to claim that the states that have been carrying out repeated invasions, genocides, and other atrocities are "functioning democracies", you have to contend with the fact that you admit your complicity in said invasions, genocides, and atrocities.
Also, not sure why it is not obvious that the politicians in your "functioning democracies" don't even have any responsibility to the working class in the imperial core, let alone the working class of Africa, Asia, and everywhere else - the people whose suffering your empire has built its wealth upon.

In fact, European countries are consistently ranked among the most democratic countries in the world

obama-medal

The memory of the terrible crimes and victims of Nazi Germany in WW2 is preserved.

Germany is quite literally one of the most enthusiastic supporter of the Lebensraum that is being carried out in Palestine.

Only fringe Neo-Nazi movements glorify the perpetrators

The name of these "fringe movements"? NATO.
Also, I will have to remind you that Ukraine, the Baltic states, Finland, and Canada (off the top of my head) openly glorify WW2 nazis. This came to the point where Poland has started complaining about this.

Georgia did not start the Russo-Georgian war of 2008

It quite literally did. Georgia quite literally was the one to attack.

I can equally point to articles saying South-Ossetian separatists

So, let's get this straight: you support the NATO-backed Mujahideen fighting against the socialist liberatory government of Afghanistan, you support NATO-backed nazis in Eastern Europe fighting against the USSR, you no doubt support NATO-backed nazis in Ukraine carrying out a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, you support NATO-backed Kurds when they participate in handing over Syria to ISIL, all on the grounds of "self-determination", but you think that Abkhazia, Ossetia, LNR, DNR, non-Mujahideen Afghanistan, etc. do not deserve self-determination.

That's a euphemistic way of saying Georgia fought against occupying forces, a view I'm sure you'll agree on when it's about the 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example.

A very weird comparison. Georgia and the US were the aggressors in both cases, and yet, you support them.

The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was not a coup led by foreign powers.

NATO: admits to spending billions on subjugating Ukraine, picks Ukrainian politicians before the completion of the coup, immediately starts working with the new government against Russia, admits to having pushed for war with Russia, and has its officials openly ask stuff like "how can we help you kill more Russians?".
You: this was totally not a coup.

Please stop pretending as if yet another in a myriad of coups/attempted coups by NATO is not such.

At least between 2014 and 2022, Ukrainian democracy was working fairly well.

You mean when they overthrew (with NATO backing) the elected government, had their officials picked by NATO, banned political parties, and were surrendering their economy to NATO in a bunch of unpopular actions?
Also, if you claim that "democracy was working well", you are claiming that the people of Ukraine should be held accountable for putting nazis in power.

It was definitely more free, fair, and just, than Russian elections, to name but one example.

Because the people who have sold you on Iraq's WMDs, Afghanistan supposedly being invaded by the USSR, the protestors in Iran supposedly not being NED-backed, etc. told you so?

Also, I would still like to know what you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - begins amassing weapons and personnel on that state's borders. You still have not given an answer.

2/2