Trump and JD Vance are doing their best to replace the US as the "leader of the free world" with a coalition of increasingly well armed and assertive independent blocs and states. Totally wild to see it cut its own throat like that.
The rest aren't really wardogs, despite France and the UK seizing the opportunity in Libya a few years back. I don't think the UK was quite over the Lockerbie bombing, and who the fuck knows with France.
??? Nothing you said invalidates what I said.
???
The far-right political fringe in Ukraine is tiny. Far-right parties are usually under 3 % of the popular vote nationally.
In 2019 the coalition of far-right parties (e.g. Svoboda, Right Sector, etc.) got just over 2% and didn't clear the threshold for parliamentary representation.. Svboda (the most well known) has a single seat right now iirc.
Sure, extremist militias such as Azov Battalion (or its successors) have included far-right activists and symbols.
However, "some far-right fighters exist" is not the same as "Ukraine is run by Nazis".
The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians before and since 2022 reject far-right ideology.
What there was: A single spike in 2012, typically interpreted as protest votes against Yanukovych and his policies - with votes for the parties collapsing again once he was gone.
You are reading motives into my argument that aren't there. I am not claiming europe is moral, has a mandate to police anyone, or deserves immunity from judgement. I am not trying to justify Iraq, Libya or Gaza, and I am not asking anyone to view those actions as lesser.
My only point is that political structures differ, and that this matters for understanding how states act and how their citizens can influence them. That's not a moral hierarchy and not an excuse - just a factual distinction. If you reject the idea that internal political structure makes any difference at all, then we are working with entirely different premises.
At that stage there is no meaningful basis for comparison or discussion. I have stated my view and you disagree. OK.
Nah, the guy clearly has an agenda and can't control himself. I'm just trying to stay consistent.
You are treating any distinction I make as if it is an attempt to portray europe as moral. It is not. europe has taken part in serious crimes and carries responsibility for them.
My point is that political systems are not identical. Europe’s structures are too often captured by interests and often fail, but they still allow for leadership changes, court rulings, investigations and public pressure. Even in eastern europe elections have been re-run and parties banned after proven foreign interference. These mechanisms are limited, but they exist. Russia removes them entirely.
Acknowledging this difference is not excusing western actions. It's also not claiming russia’s motives are justified. It's just recognising that foreign policy, internal structure and accountability aren't the same thing.
If your view is that any distinction is a double standard, then we are not working with the same categories, and there is no productive way to continue the comparison.
And back to the original theme - we don't want nor need war in europe, but russia (a fully captured state) seems hell bent on bringing it. I suppose that when it eventually falls, it will fall hard.
I think you are also treating every western action as if europe personally designed it, when in reality europe’s record is more mixed. It has responsibility for serious failures, but in most recent cases it was not the main driver. Libya is one of the few examples where european governments pushed an intervention themselves. In lots of others, like iraq or afghanistan (or the US's overall middle east approach), european states mostly followed the US out of strategic dependence rather than some unified desire to dominate the world. That does not make the outcomes less tragic, but it does mean europe isn't operating on the same logic as russia, which treats territorial expansion as a central political project.
That'a why I separate western crimes from the structure of the political systems behind them. Europe has elections that can actually change governments, courts that can and sometimes do push back, space for journalists, and protests that occasionally work. None of this helped people in iraq or gaza, which is exactly why those policies deserve criticism, but it still gives european citizens real levers to pressure their own governments.
Russia superglues those levers in place. Opposition is criminalised, media is destroyed, and elections are for show. That is not a small difference. It affects what citizens can realistically do and how the state behaves both at home and abroad.
So for me it is not about excusing the west or pretending europe is ‘moral’. It is simply that western hypocrisy does not magically turn russia’s invasion into something justified or admirable. I can condemn Iraq, Libya, Gaza and still condemn a war aimed at erasing a neighbour. That is not loyalty to Europe, it is just refusing the idea that one set of atrocities cancels out another.
Western countries have absolutely earned a lot of the criticism they get. Iraq, Libya, and the good ol' US of A's approach to the Middle East are pretty glaring stains, and Israel’s conduct has raised (justified) outrage, enough that even its own leadership now faces ICC warrants. Europe isn’t some angelic bloc either; it’s just that it does have legal and political structures (ECHR, ICC support, actual protest cultures, real accountability mechanisms) that at least give people tools to contest state violence.
None of that makes Russian aggression suddenly noble. Pointing out Western hypocrisy doesn’t magically turn Putin into a principled anti-imperialist. He’s running an authoritarian system that jails dissent, murders critics and wages a war built on territorial revanchism complete with deliberately targeting civilians.
If I have to choose between flawed democracies with internal pressure valves, independent courts and protest movements… or authoritarian states that treat brutality as a virtue, then I’ll stick to pushing the countries and systems I’m actually part of to live up to their ideals.
Hypocrisy is a problem, but open militaristic authoritarianism is way worse. The answer to western failures isn’t to excuse someone else’s.
Trust me, nobody here is itching for a fight with russia. Most of us just want to live our lives without worrying about a bully neighbour driving tanks (or riding donkeys, heh) over borders.
Ukraine isn’t fighting because we asked them to or because we want them to. They’re fighting because they woke up to an invasion.
And we will continue to support them because if you let a country grab land by force (let alone reward them for it, witkoff you idiot), it won't stop there. It makes the whole region less safe. So no, it’s not about wanting a war. It’s about trying to prevent a bigger one.
https://discuss.tchncs.de/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=798981 for those curious.
Rule 1 is "be civil and and nice". boggles
It is an instance and community's right to censor and ban as they wish, but rule 1 should perhaps be changed to "I don't like the cut of your jib" 🙈
While I was trying to make a particular point in the original response, I should have still rebuffed the core lie in it (the suggestion that russia is a victim): Russia attacked first, and it has escalated first, and it can stop the war at any time. All responses to russia's aggression are expected and justified.