this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026
268 points (90.1% liked)
Memes
56787 readers
564 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, so Russia should just exterminate the entire population and take that entire landmass. You've painted the entire country with the same broad brush and they obviously deserve it. The hundreds of thousands of people dying on both sides with surly root out the Nazi scurge and not legitimize them as a defensive force. /s in case it wasn't mega clear.
You're correct, there are some Nazis in Ukraine and it's certainly close to Nato and a possible threat on Russia's border. It's complicated. An irridentist invasion and war is not based actually, for everyone involved.
Russia has never said they plan on genocide, nor have they said they plan on taking the entirety of Ukraine. So you're just making things up.
It's hyperbolic. What are you willing to accept in the name of "killing Nazis"?
What are you willing to accept in the name of defending Nazis?
Assuming every Ukrainian is a Nazi, and every Russian isn't (which is obviously extreme on both ends, but let's simplify and take a maximalist position favoring you.)
There's a lot of estimates out there, but taking rough middle estimates, 500k Ukrainian forces have been killed, and 1,250k Russian forces. So you think it is good, logical even, to melt 2.5 non Nazis in favor of killing one? Would you sacrifice your life and a friend or family member to kill one Ukrainian Nazi?
I haven't made any of those assumptions or said any of those things, so I'm not sure what imaginary person you're arguing against
You made all kinds of open ended comments about "Nazi's getting murked" as your basic characterization of what Russia is doing in Ukraine, not measuring it against any limiting principle of civilian casualties or basically anything else. You're leaving everyone else to do your work for you of quantifying what you mean. If you are denying that the civilian vs nazi death rate is acceptable, that would negate everything you said, but you're conveniently leaving untouched literally any question that would reality check or sanity check your vague generalities.
They're killing Nazis and they're justified in doing it. Seems like you think it's worth the cost to you, but I don't know what you believe. So what is your position here?
Oh no, someone making a sane point. Better downvote it and run away!
Narrator: They downvoted and ran away
Go back to Reddit you insufferable dork
Lol, sure
My bad, I reading the casualty numbers as if they were killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war
So that's still about 500k, and not taking into account civilians, injuries, and all the other costs of war on both sides. Point still stands.
"Uh well okay they actually don't want what I said they want bUT STILL"
When you're a very serious person with a well- grounded understanding of what other governments desire and why
I can't think of a more fundamental breakdown in critical thinking than responding to concerns about civilian deaths by splitting hairs about whether 100% of the population was destroyed. Nearly identical to how Israel justifies genocide.
It's hyperbole.
And famously the Nazis were just chilling out in Germany and they got invaded by another country.
If it's hyperbole it sounds exactly like what 5 thousand dipshits have told me sincerely
Actually they were doing ethnic cleansing, like the Ukranian government was.
Why do you keep pretending that that is what has been happening?
What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers personnel and weapons on that state's borders, especially after said most prolific invader completes a coup against a neighbouring neutral state?
So, become the invader? Start the war? That seems to be what you think should happen right?
Firstly, if you cannot suggest a serious alternative, you do not have an argument against the actions of such a state in this regard.
Secondly, the most prolific invader in the world attempting to attack a country is what starts a war, rather than the retaliation and preventative measures of the other state.
Thirdly, it is public knowledge that NATO was trying to start a war with Russia, but miscalculated.
My serious alternative is defend against invasion, don't invade other countries. Pre-empting invasion with your own invasion is some Israel in 1969 logic
That wouldn't help the opposition to the most prolific invader in the world in any way, and it would allow the aggressor to do whatever they want for longer.
This is an extremely silly comparison, considering that Pissrael is literally a genocidal settler-colony and is on the side of/is part of the most prolific invader in the world, and is not opposed to it in any way.
So, you think America is going to invade Russia, two nuclear armed nations? Or did you think a country the size of Ukraine was going to do it first? (maybe excluding invading Crimea). Why would Ukraine invade exactly?
Firstly, going to note that you still have not produced a serious alternative (your previous suggestion is simply to give more advantages to the most prolific invader in the world) and are still avoiding the question of how a state should approach described aggression.
NATO has already admitted to have started the war with Russia on purpose, and NATO has been striking Russian civilians, and has done a failed invasion in the Kursk oblast.
So, if a state has nukes, you consider it okay for NATO to attack them?
This is a bizarre question, considering that Ukraine isn't the sole de facto part of NATO, and isn't even sovereign. It is wholly subjugated by NATO since 2014, and does not make its own decisions.
Ukraine is also obviously not limited to the resources it would be limited to if it wasn't a glorified NATO military base.
For the same reason NATO has been invading everywhere else, like in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Palestine, Korea, etc. - colonial subjugation of the rest of the world.
You understand the concept of mutually assured destruction right?
And what's crazy about all those countries you've listed is none of them have nuclear arms.
Going to note again that you are still avoiding the question of what should be done against the empire's aggression by the rest of the world.
Going to ask again - what should states do in such situations?
Which isn't exactly a law of nature and doesn't actually mean that NATO will definitely not attack you. Like we literally see it doing so against Russia. Hell, NATO did take hostile action against the USSR (and its allies like Cuba), a state that was much better-prepared than Russia.
Not sure why you are even bringing this up.
The DPRK does have nukes, and NATO still carried out a small-scale attack against it recently.
Sure, having nukes makes NATO less capable of attacking head-on, but that is an irrelevant argument when we actually already have the knowledge that it has taken hostile action against a country, deliberately so.
You also seem to be overestimating the willingness of nuclear-armed states to use those weapons.
Ukraine is not the US, and not even a part of Nato. I'd love the empire to fall. A land grab against Russia's neighbor isn't some benevolent fight against imperialism
Going to note that you are still not answering the question - what should states do in the face of aggression by the empire?
Only de jure. If the US tells them they want a Klitschko brother as a politician - Ukraine makes them a politician. If the US wants Ukraine to invade Syria - Ukraine invades Syria. If the US wants Ukraine to bomb Nordstream, Ukraine bombs Nordstream.
Pissrael is also de jure not a part of NATO, and yet, it's all the same polities that control it, and supply it with weapons.
Furthermore, even if you want to ignore the fact that Ukraine is thoroughly subjugated by NATO and maintain the illusion that it is sovereign, there is also the fact that the Ukrainian state has sided with the most malicious polity on the planet.
And yet, your proposition is literally to give it more resources for no reason.
Let's get this straight - you care more about imaginary lines in the sand shifting around than about the aggression from the genocidal empire that is currently doing such things as the Lebensraum in Palestine? And your argument is currently that the Russian state isn't doing it for benevolent reasons?