Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[WMS]

Let’s update How The World Turns. I’ll italicize my changes.

Those Supporting Russia, hereafter to be known as “Sh!+hole Countries”:
-obviously Belarus and all the Russian puppets like Abkhazia
-Artsakh, hey congrats, you actually made me think more kindly of Azerbaijan now
-The Central African Republic, oh yeah, actual neocolonialism in action by Russia here
-Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and special guest Evo Morales! I don’t want to hear a f***ing WORD from the Latin American International Socialist contingent bitching about American imperialism while remaining silent or outright supporting what Russia is doing and one of them showed up anyway to do exactly that
-Syria, Iran, and the Houthis, “but what about U.S.-“ F*** off, Putinists
-Myanmar, ‘The spokesperson for Myanmar's State Administration Council, Zaw Min Tun, supported Russia's decision, stating that "Russia was acting to protect its sovereignty" and praised Russia's role in balancing global power” gee that sounds like some posters in this thread, well @$$holes will be @$$holes, speaking of which
-hey look it’s China, f*** them too
-in a reversal of earlier reports, Kazakhstan, not a shocker really and then they go and refuse Putin on sending troops into Ukraine
-why it’s Donald Trump!
-Eritrea! Congratulations Putin supporters on getting a country that literally sells its people to other countries as slaves on your side! Aren’t you proud!
-North Korea finally released a statement and ‘shockingly’ supports Putin! Another triumph for the forces opposing Western Imperialism no doubt
-The Russian Orthodox Church, which should be treated as a hostile and alien entity at this point

A Bit Less Overly Pro-Russian But It’s Clear Where They Stand:
-Nigeria, wow Russia and China have been busy in Africa it seems with bribing governments and the Nigerian government REALLY doesn’t want to explain themselves either
-Pakistan, visiting Moscow during this crisis to get sweet trade deals, can we please stop pretending these snakes are “major non-NATO allies” already?
-Sri Lanka, literally “both sides” using, clearly doing what China wants
-Bolivia, no condemnation of Russia, but this IS the government that cheered Daniel Ortega’s “re-election” just recently and their statements are weak, plus the opposition is having a field day snarking about this
-Republika Srpska, who could have seen THAT coming?
-and here’s Gerhard Schroeder!

Dishonorable Mentions:
-India, really now Modi, THIS is when you choose to be a dick? You’re de facto on the side of China by doing this you know
-The UAE, okay can we yank all our troops and money from them too now?
-Jair Bolonsaro in Brazil, hilariously his own Vice President disagrees with him on this did I mention their VP is suggesting the use of force against Russia? FF
-Naftalli Bennett, no condemnation, yes yes the Russian Jews are part of the coalition and more importantly you’re still better than Netanyahu
-Serbia, wow even Hungary is condemning Russia and you sure are looking isolated in Europe, huh? and Serbia is doubling-down on this stance, hey Omega, the Serbs are once again picking the wrong side
-plenty of Republicans, I don’t have a count of the traitorous lot
-The Scarsdale Currency Trading Corporation may your currency speculation go through ‘interesting times’

Lots of Neutrals so far in the developing world, but not all of them!

And The Anti-Russians, oh look it’s most of the parts of the world that don’t suck

In conclusion, F*** Russia and everyone who supports their actions. And may God Bless Ukraine!

Georgia is another dishonorable mention: When the war in 2008 happened, Ukrainian President Yushchenko was in Tbilisi. Now, the PM doesn't want to announce sanctions and refuses to hold an extraordinary parliamentary meeting. Georgians told him nicely to  off though (As DavidB had mentioned though, the Georgian gov't behavior isn't that dumb from an economic perspective - But in a country where moral principles and losing in a fight rather than winning cowardly are valued very high within the society and culture, it might backfire)

Yeah, the sharp split between governmental and popular opinion in Georgia has meant I’m unable to really place them yet.

[WMS]

Lol I am not sure what different would be if Trump was president?

Don’t get me wrong, Biden is a joke no one takes seriously, but Trump instability is what led to the west losing its international credibility and started giving an opening for more people to feel comfortable about confronting it directly.

His likely victory in 2024 would cement the Western downfall and solidify “the new era” of power shift because not even western allies want to live in a Trump-led world. Not that Biden is a strong alternative for the democrats either, but they made their choice of picking any random weirdo just to substitute Trump instead of having an actual plan of strengthening the nation.

US needs to fix its house first to gain credibility back regarding international issues. Otherwise the trend will just keep deepening itself. Trump is the opposite of that.

Don’t you have some simping to do for the Pooh Bear, tankie?

[WMS]

https://twitter.com/notasportrayed/status/1497698584128593920?s=21

Ukrainians are great.

[WMS]

Albanian reunification soon?

https://mobile.twitter.com/tedreinert/status/1498026822822293507

What do we have to lose at this point?

Oh, but we can’t do it because we might upset Serbia and they might do something like utterly side…with…Russia…oh wait they’ve already done that well then we should definitely do this as a way to punish the Serbian government.

[WMS]

I assume this means the Russians have brought out the thermobarics, this is gonna get real nasty.

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1498037904496418817?s=20&t=06qxSG-uBQZFA...

It looks like an atomic bomb was deployed. The US and NATO have an obligation to wipe Russia off the face of the earth if that is the case.

I'm almost certain that isn't the case. The explosion that resulted from a missile hitting a pipeline in Kyiv yesterday looked really similar to this, and I'm confident we're seeing the same here.

Yeah. It looks more like the missile that hit Kyiv yesterday. On a side note, my Iranian American friend who I mentioned in the compucomp opinion of thread is thrilled that Putin invaded Ukraine and she keeps sending me pro-Putin propaganda in Facebook and Instagram messenger. She wants Russia, Iran, and China to conquer all of Ukraine and then go into Europe and conquer all the countries there.

Have you told her that’s not going to happen?

[WMS]

I assume this means the Russians have brought out the thermobarics, this is gonna get real nasty.

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1498037904496418817?s=20&t=06qxSG-uBQZFA...

It looks like an atomic bomb was deployed. The US and NATO have an obligation to wipe Russia off the face of the earth if that is the case.

I'm almost certain that isn't the case. The explosion that resulted from a missile hitting a pipeline in Kyiv yesterday looked really similar to this, and I'm confident we're seeing the same here.

Yeah. It looks more like the missile that hit Kyiv yesterday. On a side note, my Iranian American friend who I mentioned in the compucomp opinion of thread is thrilled that Putin invaded Ukraine and she keeps sending me pro-Putin propaganda in Facebook and Instagram messenger. She wants Russia, Iran, and China to conquer all of Ukraine and then go into Europe and conquer all the countries there.

Have you told her that’s not going to happen?

Man is just trying to get some, such just causes shall not be threatened by insignificant politics!

Maybe he can get some hatesex going

[WMS]

UN Security Council votes for UN general assembly emergency special session on Monday, first in 40 years. Vote was procedural, so Russia couldn't Veto.

Will be interesting to see whether the resolution against Russia gets more than 100 votes, and who votes with Russia against it. China seems to be minded to abstain, as in the UNSC, as long as the wording is not too much against Russia (UNSC resolution used "deplore"). That leaves, as per public statements of support:

Russia (obviously), Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua,

Makes 8, who else is a possibility?

- Central African Republic, Mali military regime which both have Russia mercenaries;
- Bolivia where Evo Morales has been touting the Russian line, but the Acre Government seems more neutral
- Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Tajikistan seem possible but unlikely (of these only Armenia voted for Russia on Crimea, however Armenia has had regime change and Tokayev is more dependent on Russia, Tajikistan also since Taliban takeover)
-Zimbabwe?

Russia keeping good company in any event

Cuba, Eritrea definitely in favor. Maybe some of those you mentioned. The big thing to watch is Favor vs Abstain.

[WMS]

Also, a sidenote: It took us from November 7 last year to February 24 to get to 100 pages. Anyone want to wager how long it'll take us until we've reached 200?

Sunday morning, 8:00 AM.

Also, a sidenote: It took us from November 7 last year to February 24 to get to 100 pages. Anyone want to wager how long it'll take us until we've reached 200?

We've had like 60 pages in the last day, so I'd say Saturday or Sunday

These are both looking unlikely now. Posting in this thread slowed down a lot, not sure why.

BigSerg is muted and Vaccinated Russian Bear has vanished off the face of the forum. Plus some of the usual International General Discussion posters have been very quiet about this.

[WMS]

UN Security Council votes for UN general assembly emergency special session on Monday, first in 40 years. Vote was procedural, so Russia couldn't Veto.

Will be interesting to see whether the resolution against Russia gets more than 100 votes, and who votes with Russia against it. China seems to be minded to abstain, as in the UNSC, as long as the wording is not too much against Russia (UNSC resolution used "deplore"). That leaves, as per public statements of support:

Russia (obviously), Belarus, North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua,

Makes 8, who else is a possibility?

- Central African Republic, Mali military regime which both have Russia mercenaries;
- Bolivia where Evo Morales has been touting the Russian line, but the Acre Government seems more neutral
- Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Tajikistan seem possible but unlikely (of these only Armenia voted for Russia on Crimea, however Armenia has had regime change and Tokayev is more dependent on Russia, Tajikistan also since Taliban takeover)
-Zimbabwe?

Russia keeping good company in any event

Cuba, Eritrea definitely in favor. Maybe some of those you mentioned. The big thing to watch is Favor vs Abstain.

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1498069761778982912?s=21

Maybe Brazil, although I highly doubt Brazil thinks like Bolsonaro does

[WMS]

161 pages, 30 of them by NOVA Green.

But why do you have me wearing a woman's wedding ring?

I provided the ORIGINAL Pornhub quote and then you waltz along behind me today and claiming like it is "new news"   

Just for you will quote your earlier post

Okay, perhaps a bit petty and forgot to mention it when I first saw the article yesterday, but Pornhub has now blocked their content from Russian Users....

https://groundreport.in/pornhub-ban-russia-sanctions-no-one-is-talking-about/

Now--- Pornhub and Russia have exchanged beef before, going way back to 2016 and 2017

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/pornhub-youporn-russia-blocked-premium-vladimir-putin-meet-people-in-real-life-a7308391.html

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/07/12/russians-told-to-log-in-to-pornhub-using-verified-social-media-accounts/

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/2/15726082/russia-putin-navalny-pornhub

Meanwhile, you stole my Pornhub and made it your own...

Sanctions just got real for the Russians.

Haven’t seen these yet here:

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1497288086622978048?s=21

Nope, beat you both…heh

[WMS]

At this point it's abundantly clear that Russia should have shut off its internet for the duration of the war and that if they had the capacity to knock out Ukraine's internet, they should have done so. How the hell is an army supposed to keep operational security and secrecy if anybody with a smartphone can record troop and vehicle movements and upload it to Twitter/Telegram/etc immediately?

Cope.

I don't need to cope, I'm not Russian. China is not a party to this conflict. However there are surely valuable lessons to be learned, and the PLA should be carefully studying and analyzing this campaign to figure out what worked, what didn't, and what should have been done, and to adjust accordingly.

If you had to guess, what lessons do you think there are to be learned from this in general?

The Russians are losing because of insufficient dedication to Xi Jinping Thought!

[WMS]

While I’m waiting for the UNGA Special Session to assemble, debate, and vote on condemning Russia - it’s about the only way to determine the stances of the silent countries out there - and waiting for more information on what’s going on, and to avoid dooming, I thought I’d point out Freedom House came out with their yearly report and for the purposes of this thread I’ll show how various countries and entities rank on their Freedom Scale, for comparison.

This uses the new scale they’ve had since their 2013 edition, -4 through 100, and yes, both perfect scores - hey there Finland and Sweden - and negative scores - hi Syria - have occurred before.

The Bad Guys™️ (Credit dead0man):
Russia -> 19
Crimea -> 7
Eastern Donbas -> 4
South Ossetia -> 11
Abkhazia -> 40
Transnistria -> 18
Belarus -> 8
Syria -> 1
Iran -> 14
Cuba -> 12
Nicaragua -> 23
Venezuela -> 14
Eritrea -> 3
Central African Republic -> 7
China -> 9
Tibet -> 1
Hong Kong -> 43
North Korea -> 3
Myanmar -> 9
Yemen (the Houthis are every bit as bad as their opponents so this rating applies to all) -> 9

Also of Interest:
Serbia -> 62
Kosovo -> 56
Albania -> 67
Hungary -> 69
Montenegro -> 67
North Macedonia -> 67
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbs are worst but Croats and Bosnians aren’t far behind) -> 53
Croatia -> 85

Some Good Guys™️:
Ukraine -> 61
Moldova -> 62
Poland -> 81
Lithuania -> 89
Latvia -> 88
Estonia -> 94
Romania -> 83
Bulgaria -> 79

Token Evil Teammate:
Turkey -> 32

Because Someone Will Ask:
United States -> 83

Okay, just some context for the “both sides” arguments.

[WMS]

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

In Bolsonaro’s case, in opposition to the stance of literally every other presidential candidate in Brazil*

*At least, I think Lula is taking Ukraine’s side; the statement of his on Wikipedia is a little ambiguous but I await more information about that.

[WMS]

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



https://twitter.com/mr_andrew_fox/status/1497938247099498501?s=21

Ah, so THIS is why the Taliban were trying to look reasonable abroad; to help distract from this.

[WMS]

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

In Bolsonaro’s case, in opposition to the stance of literally every other presidential candidate in Brazil*

*At least, I think Lula is taking Ukraine’s side; the statement of his on Wikipedia is a little ambiguous but I await more information about that.

His own VP too, who if anything is TOO cavalier about attempting to blast Russia to kingdom come.

As much as I admire his sentiments, one needs to use both their hearts and their minds.

[WMS]

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

In Bolsonaro’s case, in opposition to the stance of literally every other presidential candidate in Brazil*

*At least, I think Lula is taking Ukraine’s side; the statement of his on Wikipedia is a little ambiguous but I await more information about that.

Buritobr just posted on this topic on another board in this forum

Very interesting. Doesn’t exactly make me a fan of Lula either, although of course he’s better than Bolsonaro. It would help if Lula was a bit clearer on his stance

[WMS]

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

In Bolsonaro’s case, in opposition to the stance of literally every other presidential candidate in Brazil*

*At least, I think Lula is taking Ukraine’s side; the statement of his on Wikipedia is a little ambiguous but I await more information about that.

Buritobr just posted on this topic on another board in this forum

Very interesting. Doesn’t exactly make me a fan of Lula either, although of course he’s better than Bolsonaro. It would help if Lula was a bit clearer on his stance

In Latin America, you have a strong impulse in many quarters for independence from the US' stances and geopolitical autonomy, especially on the Left. America casts a big shadow over the region in the same way Russia casts a big shadow over parts of the post-Soviet sphere.
This translates into, for better or worse, differences between the American/NATO lines on things and a Latin American one.

Oh yes, I’ve ran into that attitude before.

I draw a line between “desires more autonomy in geopolitics” and “is happy to side with Autocracy Inc.™️ and betray the cause of human rights worldwide just To StIcK iT tO tHe YaNkEeS”. That latter attitude has been exposed as the despicable hypocrisy it always was by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

[WMS]

Extremely good thread analyzing the Russian effort so far:
https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1498381975022940167?s=20&t=NdAdtfsO...

I agree 100% with this and this is why I do believe Ukraine will fall.

Unfortunately, I have to concur. However, I’d like to challenge all assertions that Ukraine falling will “end the crisis”. If you think Putin ‘winning’ means we can all just go back to normal no it f***ing won’t! Until the Russian push for Empire is defeated decisively this crisis will. Never. End.

[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.

[WMS]

What stances are Indonesia, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia taking?
(to pick an assortment of countries with a history of non-aligned/relatively neutral foreign policies)

Amusingly enough, they’re on a spectrum in the exact order you typed them out.

Indonesia has been with the West so far on everything.

South Africa has been neutral-leaning pro-Western.

Bangladesh has been purely neutral.

Ethiopia has been neutral-leaning pro-Russia.

As of this moment, anyway.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[WMS]

No personal attacks, please!

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