This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.

You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are defending the state, not people's lives.

Ironic when liberals act how they claim communists act. I mean I know it makes sense logically, that it's all projection with scratched libs, but it's still so weird to see in practice

I mean the Ukranians are doing suicidal infantry attacks against entranched positions with conscripts ffs, it's just too on the nose

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Allright, I guess we'll just wait until all the able-bodied ukrainians have been killed (despite themselves not wanting to fight) and then the land will be ceded. I'm sure its much better if thousands more die first!

[–] Ginjutsu@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So Ukraine should just lay down their arms and let an authoritarian, borderline oligarchy like Russia have their way with the country?

Great logic bro. Can't argue with that.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lots of assumptions on what would happen to Ukraine, and you are also implying that Ukraine is not an "authoritarian" (a word with no meaning) borderline oligarchy, so that's fascinating.

But yeah, even if these assumptions were true, then yeah I think it's better for people not to die in an unwinnable war, than for people to die and then for the same thing to happen. I'm a big fan of people Not Dying actually.

[–] Ginjutsu@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great. Tell that to the Russians who occupied Bucha.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's their @?

[–] Ginjutsu@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm glad you can make light of a tragic situation.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Good thing the bucha was debunked, but if it hadn't been I'd probably have urged you to look inward since you're the one who tried to use the tragedy as a way to score a cheap point, despite it not detracting from my overall arguement

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net -1 points 1 year ago

Ok so why don't you teach all us damn talkies a lesson and explain to us how you stop the war then other than libs usual line of Russia just gives up and goes home for no apparent reason.

Because currently either land changes hands at some point or everybody on one side dies and libs keep insisting the first option is a no go.

So please, inform us. We're all very excited to hear what you have to say.