• freagle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    19 hours ago

    So then you want the US to lose? Or are you limiting all of your thinking to this one specific location and time? Because if you want the attacker to lose, then you want the US to lose. Since 1992, the US has attacked over 14 countries. Russia has attacked 3, all of them border conflicts. The US is the attacker, pushing people out of their countries all over the world.

    And let’s be very clear here. The Russians see this as a proxy war with the US. The US sees this as a proxy war with Russia. Both sides have said so. Ukraine doesn’t deserve to be a US proxy, because US proxies get shredded in the name of advancing the interests of the US.

      • freagle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Right, so, in the case of the proxy war between the West (helmed by the US) and Russia, it also makes sense that we want the US to lose in Ukraine. Not because in that case the US fired the first shot and crossed the border, but be sure the conflict is fundamentally predicated on US hegemony and the fight against it. Ukraine is only still at war because the West is pumping billions of support into it. And the West only does that to support its own interests. If Ukraine had lost after their 3rd complete military loss, instead of more and more tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, training, mercenaries, and logistics being pumped in to prolong the conflict, there would have been far more peace and far less destruction. Ukraine needs to lose for the US to lose.