Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[WMS]

Regarding Red Velvet's defense of Brazilian neutrality, he gets that the forces that drive his part of the world to (rightly) see American hegemony as an especially serious threat are the same forces that drive Volodymyr Zelensky's part of the world to (rightly) see Russian hegemony as an especially serious threat, doesn't he? That being the case, a "moral ruler" that actively objects to one but not the other only really makes sense if one sees Latin America as a proper Brazilian sphere of influence (or something), or else see the world outside Latin America as too far away to be any of one's concern.

The hypocrisy is what offends me the most. If you oppose imperialism everywhere, that is a valid (this is not the same as correct BTW) and respectable stance. If you don’t think toppling an oppressive government counts as imperialism, that is a valid (also not the same as correct BTW) and respectable stance. If you oppose any intervention anywhere, that is a valid (still not the same as correct BTW) and respectable stance. But if you only oppose imperialism if it’s done by countries you oppose, while not opposing imperialism by other countries, that’s hypocritical. And if you oppose imperialism (whether actual or perceived) by democratic countries while supporting imperialism by autocratic countries, that’s monstrous.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it. The condescension towards Americans is precisely of opinions like you’re pushing, which implicitly are disrespectful to Brazil as a sovereign independent country.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

[It’s so Joever]

The genuine question I have for everyone is how far can Russia go before you will support intervention on the ground? Can they level Kyiv and Kharkiv? Can they use chemical weapons? Can they start intentionally killing Ukrainians to replace them with Russians like the Germans wanted with Poland? Can they use a nuke? Where is the red line, because what I am getting from a lot of people here and Biden is that there really isn’t a red line.

[Frodo]

Someone somewhere mentioned that Putin intended his blitzkrieg invasion of Ukraine as the 21st century version of the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis that would be to the United States what the original was to Britain and France.  Clearly his gambit has backfired big time, revealing it is Russia -and not the United States- that can no longer be regarded as a true global superpower.  

Unless of course you consider the nuclear weapons stockpile it inherited from the Soviet Union, but then again so do Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel...and they can hardly be considered 'superpowers' in any real sense of the term.  

[Middle-aged Europe]

Don't know if this has already been reported on here, but the UK closes its ports for any ships under Russian flag.

https://mobile.twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1498324731635843074

[Not Me, Us]

The genuine question I have for everyone is how far can Russia go before you will support intervention on the ground? Can they level Kyiv and Kharkiv? Can they use chemical weapons? Can they start intentionally killing Ukrainians to replace them with Russians like the Germans wanted with Poland? Can they use a nuke? Where is the red line, because what I am getting from a lot of people here and Biden is that there really isn’t a red line.

There is no scenario where I would support boots on the ground. If Russia drops a nuke, we retaliate with our own nukes, but that is the only form of direct American intervention I would support and only as a last resort after Russia strikes first.

[pppolitics]

The genuine question I have for everyone is how far can Russia go before you will support intervention on the ground? Can they level Kyiv and Kharkiv? Can they use chemical weapons? Can they start intentionally killing Ukrainians to replace them with Russians like the Germans wanted with Poland? Can they use a nuke? Where is the red line, because what I am getting from a lot of people here and Biden is that there really isn’t a red line.

I would have sent "peace keeper" troops in Ukraine a long time ago.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

This sort of policy is far from new for Brazil. The Brazilian military government maintained extensive relations with the Non-Aligned Movement.

[pppolitics]

I don't blame Bulgaria for not sending their MiG-29s. It is several years off from receiving its replacement F-16s. I believe their claim if they gave their planes to Ukraine, there wouldn't be enough aircraft and parts left to defend Bulgaria. https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1498440837830782978?s=20&t=XhOHu322KlD...

If I were Biden, I would do a swap with the F-16s that US already has in existing inventory.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The genuine question I have for everyone is how far can Russia go before you will support intervention on the ground? Can they level Kyiv and Kharkiv? Can they use chemical weapons? Can they start intentionally killing Ukrainians to replace them with Russians like the Germans wanted with Poland? Can they use a nuke? Where is the red line, because what I am getting from a lot of people here and Biden is that there really isn’t a red line.

There has been a lot of chatter on German television tonight about Putin's recent nuclear threats and the general consensus - which also included an interview with Germany's version of the JCS chairman, the Inspector-General of the Bundeswehr - seemed to be that while the use of strategic nukes against Western countries should be considered a bluff, there is also reason for genuine concern that Putin might be willing to use tactical nukes on the Ukrainian battlefield.

[Storr]

snip

This sort of policy is far from new for Brazil. The Brazilian military government maintained extensive relations with the Non-Aligned Movement.

Indeed, Brazil's neutrality on the war is like India's. There's a long history of being neutral in West/NATO - Soviet/Russian conflicts. This isn't a case of Brazil changing its position and "siding" with Russia. They are actually staying neutral and aren't blaming NATO for "provoking" Russia like China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. As a result, I'm not upset by Brazil's position, but some of Bolsonaro's comments were frustrating like: "adding that in two southern regions of Ukraine, some 90% of the population wanted to "approximate themselves to Russia.""

https://www.reuters.com/world/bolsonaro-wont-condemn-putin-says-brazil-will-remain-neutral-over-invasion-2022-02-27/

[pppolitics]

The genuine question I have for everyone is how far can Russia go before you will support intervention on the ground? Can they level Kyiv and Kharkiv? Can they use chemical weapons? Can they start intentionally killing Ukrainians to replace them with Russians like the Germans wanted with Poland? Can they use a nuke? Where is the red line, because what I am getting from a lot of people here and Biden is that there really isn’t a red line.

There had been a lot of chatter on German television tonight about Putin's recent nuclear threats and the general consensus - which also included an interview with Germany's version of the JCS chairman, the Inspector-General of the Bundeswehr - seemed to be that while the use of strategic nukes against Western countries should be considered a bluff, there is also reason for genuine concern that Putin might be willing to use tactical nukes on the Ukrainian battlefield.

If Putin starts shooting nukes, it's the end of Putin.

No way would Xi be crazy enough to side with Putin.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it. The condescension towards Americans is precisely of opinions like you’re pushing, which implicitly are disrespectful to Brazil as a sovereign independent country.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

You literally compared US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of what aboutism. The former is absurd and the later, while an unjust invasion wasn’t a war of territorial conquest and both were pariah stare dictatorships not flawed democracies. And then you tried a weak backup with hur dur racism.

The original qualification for joining the UN was declaring war on the Axis and we have only one real rule of conduct, no wars of conquest.
If your position is that you don’t want to give a damn about anything that happens outside of the Lusophone/Hispanophone world, just say that and don’t act like that gives you a moral high ground.

[Storebought]

Any details on how Ukraine is taking advantage of this (very early) Russian pause?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ukraine would be wise to very carefully take full advantage of the Russian pause. Preparing for the worst would be well advised.

[Storr]

Based.
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1498336817808125956?s=20&t=M7z21FDQxgpz...

[Mehmentum]

Just want to comment around some of the narrative I've heard in some leftist spaces.  There is no doubt that the U.S. has done terrible things on the world stage.  The invasion of Iraq is particularly inexcusable, considering how much of its justification was built on pure lies.

But lets be clear, the invasion of Ukraine is different from anything the U.S. has done in recent decades not merely in degree, but in kind.  When the U.S. bombs Al-Qaeda affiliates in Somalia, its bad because civilians are often killed in these attacks.  But this is not an attempt by the US to subjugate the local population, expand its territory, or to erase an ethnic heritage.  Even in Iraq, while certainly some of the motivations were exploitative in nature, this was not the intention.

Goals matter, not just on a theoretical moral level, but practically.  Because you have to consider what will happen to the people in question when a great power achieves those goals.  The U.S. being unchallenged in the world and achieving all its strategic goals certainly wouldn't be good for everyone- after all the US has shown it can certainly act with greed, corruption, and paranoia.  But not only would that world be far better than a hypothetical Russia or China controlled one, but the U.S. political system actually allows for U.S. citizens to push it to be better.  Anyone rooting for the U.S. to fail should consider what that would actually mean for the world.  The far, far better course is to hope the U.S. succeeds while pushing for it to be better.

[Torie]

For all the talk about denazification and stopping a genocide, it bears repeating that the people being bombed with cluster munitions are the Russian speaking civilians of Kharkiv.

Sigh.  In WWII there were 5 battles of Kharkov.  I never thought I will see another battle of Kharkov.  Hopefully this madness stops and a peace can be worked out before the fighting actually reaches the city.

No doubt you have already know this, maybe before the NYT did, but this is one NYT article that might interest you one way or the other.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/world/europe/russia-economy-sanctions-ukraine.html

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/pragatipal6/status/1498168588858920960?s=21

Nothing says fighting Nazis like sending this guy
 to go kill some Jews.

He literally looks like Red Skull. Or something from Quake or Killzone. The only thing this war needs is some Heavy Metal for the Tik Tok war reports.

[WMS]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it for example.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

You are astonishingly dense.

A principle can be anything that guides a person, institution, or entity. Of course Brazilian policy is guided by principles, we are disagreeing on what those principles are, especially as espoused by you. This entire debate is in the Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread so of f***ing course people are discussing things as related to it!

You are lying through your teeth about Yemen: I only mentioned it because you did you tankie dolt.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemenare. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

What a load of condescending BS. This entire argument started when Buffalo Mayor Young Kim raised a valid question:

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

And then you jumped in to make an anti-Western rant that didn’t even address the distinction but staked out a hypocritical position that I pointed out. For that matter, I earlier in this thread had pointed out the differing positions of Brazilian presidential candidates, seeking clarification of Lula’s stance. Oh, clearly I have no desire to learn about stances over the Russian invasion by and within other countries, especially given that I was the main person reporting on them!

Your strawman is so badly constructed I’m amazed you have the gall to put it up. And you telling me to move to move on is hysterical given you haven’t refuted any, much less all, of my arguments, your position isn’t anywhere near the predominant one in this thread, this board, or this forum. You’re the one that’s in a bubble, tankie.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No personal attacks, please!

[Person Man]

Just want to comment around some of the narrative I've heard in some leftist spaces.  There is no doubt that the U.S. has done terrible things on the world stage.  The invasion of Iraq is particularly inexcusable, considering how much of its justification was built on pure lies.

But lets be clear, the invasion of Ukraine is different from anything the U.S. has done in recent decades not merely in degree, but in kind.  When the U.S. bombs Al-Qaeda affiliates in Somalia, its bad because civilians are often killed in these attacks.  But this is not an attempt by the US to subjugate the local population, expand its territory, or to erase an ethnic heritage.  Even in Iraq, while certainly some of the motivations were exploitative in nature, this was not the intention.

Goals matter, not just on a theoretical moral level, but practically.  Because you have to consider what will happen to the people in question when a great power achieves those goals.  The U.S. being unchallenged in the world and achieving all its strategic goals certainly wouldn't be good for everyone- after all the US has shown it can certainly act with greed, corruption, and paranoia.  But not only would that world be far better than a hypothetical Russia or China controlled one, but the U.S. political system actually allows for U.S. citizens to push it to be better.  Anyone rooting for the U.S. to fail should consider what that would actually mean for the world.  The far, far better course is to hope the U.S. succeeds while pushing for it to be better.

Based

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/pragatipal6/status/1498168588858920960?s=21

Nothing says fighting Nazis like sending this guy
[im.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Utkinportrait.jpg[/img] to go kill some Jews.

He literally looks like Red Skull. Or something from Quake or Killzone. The only thing this war needs is some Heavy Metal for the Tik Tok war reports.

He is the field commander of the Wagner Group, Putin’s mercenary paramilitary. 4 medals of valor from Russia, wanted by the ICJ. The extra large photo is so everyone can see the SS tattoos on this alleged anti-Nazi commando.

[WMS]

No personal attacks, please!

He started it. And don’t pretend you’re unbiased, since you’re recommending all of his posts.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it. The condescension towards Americans is precisely of opinions like you’re pushing, which implicitly are disrespectful to Brazil as a sovereign independent country.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

You literally compared US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of what aboutism. The former is absurd and the later, while an unjust invasion wasn’t a war of territorial conquest and both were pariah stare dictatorships not flawed democracies. And then you tried a weak backup with hur dur racism.

The original qualification for joining the UN was declaring war on the Axis and we have only one real rule of conduct, no wars of conquest.
If your position is that you don’t want to give a damn about anything that happens outside of the Lusophone/Hispanophone world, just say that and don’t act like that gives you a moral high ground.

LMAO, how not to be condescending to that type of thinking? So you can invade countries for regime change? What the hell is Putin trying to do when he goes crazy trying to take Zelensky out to put a pro-Russian government?

US thinking says it’s entitled to invade countries which they see as “authoritarian”. Can’t you see that’s the same argument of Putin when he acts he can invade Ukraine because of “neonazi” presence?

It’s all different imperialism justifications to create a false sense of moral reasoning so that useful morons can be pushed to believe you’re spreading freedom and keep believing in these idiotic hero vs villain fairytales that stimulate national pride.

There are no heroes anywhere, wake up. We’re adults here, at least I hope so. All there is are different countries looking out for their interests. Your fairytales got lost in XX century and the Bush wars were the beginning of their burial.