You are literally going “I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY” and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points
That’s because you completely accept one side’s narrative, despite having nothing to back it up, so anything that challenges that one-sided view you just label as a “Russian talking point.”
You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image.
That’s a blatant lie. I criticized Russia’s invasion and accused them of doing the exact same thing that I accused the US of. Plenty of actually pro-Russia people would take issue with that, and say that their armed men with guns are the real expression of popular support and the other side is just a foreign puppet, exactly the way you do in reverse.
Unless I see a reason why I should trust one group of armed men seizing government buildings more than the other, then it’s perfectly reasonable to regard both claims with equal skepticism.
The main reason you’re turning to these accusations and talking about ending the discussion is because you can’t answer the simple question I posed, which is how we know the faction in the west legitimately represents the people’s will. I’m assuming the answer is that the media told you so and you never thought to critically examine it. So now we have all this bullshit to hide the fact that you don’t have an answer.
Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does
Lol, no you haven’t. You’re depicting the US as heroically coming to the rescue of a poor, defenseless country that’s fully democratic and representive of the popular will, while possibly having an ulterior motive for doing so, while Russia is depicted as using proxies to seize territory in a brazen attempt at expansionism. This despite the fact that there is nothing you can point to to actually demonstrate that the Western-backed faction is any less of a proxy or any more of a legitimate representation of popular will. Like I said, when the conversation hits that point, you just hastily change the subject and start throwing out baseless accusations.
Just the same as you treat everything: It isn’t liberal unless you agree, it isn’t democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You’re like a five year old.
To be clear, the policies I was mentioning, like ending the war in Afghanistan, were popular policies. It’s not the fact that the US government doesn’t respond to my, personal views that makes it not a democracy, it’s the fact that it does not respond to what the people in general want.
A “marxist” who supports authoritarianism.
Lol, and I suppose you either haven’t read Engles or don’t consider him a Marxist either. Next you’ll be telling me that Marx himself wasn’t a Marxist. Nevermind the fact that this “support for authoritarianism” is just something you made up to get out of answering a difficult question.
Your framing is so pathetic I genuinely think you might actually be American by your lack of reading comprehension and your failure to have an actual position you’re consistent in.
Your entire argument is a desire to take your ball and go home because people don’t agree with you, which is the basis of a democratic government, people disagreeing. While people want to sling shit about socialism vs capitalism, Marx and Engles both 100% supported a democratic notion of a country where voting was key which you clearly don’t. You’re ignorantly standing on the opposite side of that fence thinking you champion these people and it makes me sad you try to use their names to prove a point you genuinely don’t even understand. You parrot Russian talking points to legitimize their claim to Ukraine. You deny Ukraine it’s sovereign right to decide for itself and genuinely referred to it’s democratic decisions as the result of it being a puppet state, something only a person with a legume for a brain would think.
I said I’m done here stop talking to me. Go back to read your theories and fail to understand them. Go back to supporting authoritarianism because people don’t agree with what you think or do what you say. If you ever lead a country it would be under an authoritarian rule because you genuinely cannot handle people disagreeing with you and view it as them being “wrong”. Bye bye bonehead.
So you’re just going to completely ignore the fact that there’s this huge gaping hole in your logic around the question “how do we know the Western-backed faction genuinely represents the popular will” and pretend that you actually answered it and proceed to attack me over not just blindly accepting that claim based on nothing the way you do.
Really doesn’t do much to dispel the notion that your criticisms of the West are just empty talk, and that in practice you’re as blindly loyal to your state as anyone.
As usual, any critical thought, or anything short of “USA! USA!” is a “Russian talking point.”
Because it’s a disingenuous question. It isn’t a western-backed faction, it is the will of Ukrainians. They marched in the street. Only an absolute idiot would ask such a stupid poopoo baby headed question. Foolish smh. Now leave me alone and go be a legume brain elsewhere.
It’s not? Really? When did all the arms shipments stop?
It objective and inarguable that they’re getting backing from West, regardless of their legitimacy. If you’re going to complain about semantics at least make it accurate.
They marched in the street.
And the separatists didn’t? This is ridiculous.
At best, that shows that people in the western regions didn’t like the old government. It does not prove that they did like the new government (especially considering the US was hand-picking which figures would end up in power), and it also does not prove that the people in regions far from where those marches took place were in agreement with any of that.
If the western-backed faction had been so secure in their support and popularity, then why was it necessary for them to ban the opposition parties anyway?
It’s such a shame that it’s impossible to discuss anything like this with anyone in your camp because you all respond this same way, taking offense to the fact that I’m even considering these questions instead of blindly accepting whatever our politicians tells us to think.
That’s because you completely accept one side’s narrative, despite having nothing to back it up, so anything that challenges that one-sided view you just label as a “Russian talking point.”
That’s a blatant lie. I criticized Russia’s invasion and accused them of doing the exact same thing that I accused the US of. Plenty of actually pro-Russia people would take issue with that, and say that their armed men with guns are the real expression of popular support and the other side is just a foreign puppet, exactly the way you do in reverse.
Unless I see a reason why I should trust one group of armed men seizing government buildings more than the other, then it’s perfectly reasonable to regard both claims with equal skepticism.
The main reason you’re turning to these accusations and talking about ending the discussion is because you can’t answer the simple question I posed, which is how we know the faction in the west legitimately represents the people’s will. I’m assuming the answer is that the media told you so and you never thought to critically examine it. So now we have all this bullshit to hide the fact that you don’t have an answer.
Lol, no you haven’t. You’re depicting the US as heroically coming to the rescue of a poor, defenseless country that’s fully democratic and representive of the popular will, while possibly having an ulterior motive for doing so, while Russia is depicted as using proxies to seize territory in a brazen attempt at expansionism. This despite the fact that there is nothing you can point to to actually demonstrate that the Western-backed faction is any less of a proxy or any more of a legitimate representation of popular will. Like I said, when the conversation hits that point, you just hastily change the subject and start throwing out baseless accusations.
To be clear, the policies I was mentioning, like ending the war in Afghanistan, were popular policies. It’s not the fact that the US government doesn’t respond to my, personal views that makes it not a democracy, it’s the fact that it does not respond to what the people in general want.
Lol, and I suppose you either haven’t read Engles or don’t consider him a Marxist either. Next you’ll be telling me that Marx himself wasn’t a Marxist. Nevermind the fact that this “support for authoritarianism” is just something you made up to get out of answering a difficult question.
Your framing is so pathetic I genuinely think you might actually be American by your lack of reading comprehension and your failure to have an actual position you’re consistent in.
Your entire argument is a desire to take your ball and go home because people don’t agree with you, which is the basis of a democratic government, people disagreeing. While people want to sling shit about socialism vs capitalism, Marx and Engles both 100% supported a democratic notion of a country where voting was key which you clearly don’t. You’re ignorantly standing on the opposite side of that fence thinking you champion these people and it makes me sad you try to use their names to prove a point you genuinely don’t even understand. You parrot Russian talking points to legitimize their claim to Ukraine. You deny Ukraine it’s sovereign right to decide for itself and genuinely referred to it’s democratic decisions as the result of it being a puppet state, something only a person with a legume for a brain would think.
I said I’m done here stop talking to me. Go back to read your theories and fail to understand them. Go back to supporting authoritarianism because people don’t agree with what you think or do what you say. If you ever lead a country it would be under an authoritarian rule because you genuinely cannot handle people disagreeing with you and view it as them being “wrong”. Bye bye bonehead.
So you’re just going to completely ignore the fact that there’s this huge gaping hole in your logic around the question “how do we know the Western-backed faction genuinely represents the popular will” and pretend that you actually answered it and proceed to attack me over not just blindly accepting that claim based on nothing the way you do.
Really doesn’t do much to dispel the notion that your criticisms of the West are just empty talk, and that in practice you’re as blindly loyal to your state as anyone.
As usual, any critical thought, or anything short of “USA! USA!” is a “Russian talking point.”
Because it’s a disingenuous question. It isn’t a western-backed faction, it is the will of Ukrainians. They marched in the street. Only an absolute idiot would ask such a stupid poopoo baby headed question. Foolish smh. Now leave me alone and go be a legume brain elsewhere.
It’s not? Really? When did all the arms shipments stop?
It objective and inarguable that they’re getting backing from West, regardless of their legitimacy. If you’re going to complain about semantics at least make it accurate.
And the separatists didn’t? This is ridiculous.
At best, that shows that people in the western regions didn’t like the old government. It does not prove that they did like the new government (especially considering the US was hand-picking which figures would end up in power), and it also does not prove that the people in regions far from where those marches took place were in agreement with any of that.
If the western-backed faction had been so secure in their support and popularity, then why was it necessary for them to ban the opposition parties anyway?
It’s such a shame that it’s impossible to discuss anything like this with anyone in your camp because you all respond this same way, taking offense to the fact that I’m even considering these questions instead of blindly accepting whatever our politicians tells us to think.