It’s not saying it’s bad to be anti-war, it’s saying that it’s a naive position in this case - a simple “anti-war-ism” as opposed to the more complicated “fully understands the core of modern geopolitics”. “Anti-war-ism” is still placed exactly opposite social darwinism, but is adjacent to both “fully understands geopolitics” and “dogs of US empire”.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this, just that they’re acting rationally in the face of a threat. In fact, Russia should be the weakest link in the anti-imperial camp. The Russian Federation would have been perfectly happy to join NATO and assist with the oppression of the third world, but for one reason or another, NATO wasn’t interested - my personal theory is that Russia would have provided too much of a counterbalance to the US within NATO, potentially making NATO dangerously independent. Thus, Russia remained a designated enemy even after it liberalized. But, the specific reason isn’t the main point, the main point is that Russia has been forced by circumstance into the anti-imperial camp, while Ukraine has chosen to be a tool of the imperial camp. It’s as simple as that, and you can be as anti-campist as you want, but there are objectively two camps, and no unaligned alternative. If you asked any Ukrainian nationalist, they would agree that they are with the west against the oriental hordes.
Ukraine was the culmination of a process of bringing former eastern bloc states into NATO in order to surround and weaken Russia. Russia understood this, and had Ukraine as a red line. From the Russian point of view, a Ukraine allied with the west would be a hostile state placed at the furthest southern line of advance of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That is to say, any potential attack on Russia by NATO would begin where the Germans stalled out (at least on the northern and southern fronts), and thus have a much greater chance of reaching Moscow. Or, a bit more realistically, NATO missiles and aircraft could be based much closer to the Russian heartland than before. You can argue that their assessment would be wrong, but that only makes sense if you trust NATO over Russia, where even a neutral position (i.e. don’t trust Russia or NATO) would hold that Russia’s concerns are valid.
Even then, Russia didn’t immediately invade Ukraine after the 2014 coup (Maidan wasn’t a revolution, it was just a seizure of power by right wing nationalists). Yes, they seized Crimea and supported the eastern separatists, but they didn’t fully commit until it was completely clear that no diplomatic solution was forthcoming. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky had been elected as the peace candidate - people wanted the civil war to end, and that’s what he campaigned on. He ended up being too weak to stop the nationalist militias from fighting, so the war continued, and with a diplomatic solution dead in the water, Russia took their shot.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia. Ukraine placed itself in the imperialist camp, and this forced Russia solidly into the anti-imperial camp. To support Ukraine is to support a victory for imperialism. Thus, to support both Palestine and Ukraine is to support the empire being weakened in one region and strengthened in another - it’s a geopolitically incoherent position because it comes from a geopolitically naive read of the overall situation.
Thank you for posting this. It’s extremely cogent, coherent, and straightforward. I really appreciate this as it helped clarify and solidify my understanding. 🫡
lol. Now THIS is what you call a straw man. I like how you got proven super wrong then you were like “well some of u fucking tankies believe this shit” Lol. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up & read dude. Read something that wasn’t written by an asset. God damn
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia.
Pretty sure Ukrainians just want better living conditions just like anyone else. And “the west” happens to have arguably the best living conditions; I’m not surprised anyone would want to be at this table. Are you really arguing that people are looking at Russia as a nice place to go live? I’ve never actually set foot there, but from the other side of the world it doesn’t look good. Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Also, invading Ukraine as a preventative measure against NATO expansion turned out to be spectacularly stupid, because it directly led to NATO expansion to a direct neighbour (Finland).
But yeah, in general I’m not on the side of countries invading other ones. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong, what Israel is doing in Palestine is wrong, and what the US is doing in Venezuela/Iran/Greenland/Cuba is also wrong.
Do you think they were ever going to give Ukrainians a chance to be “western”? They just wanted to use them as a tool against Russia, not elevate them to a western European standard of living. The entire inciting incident of Euromaidan and all of this was Yanukovych’s cancellation of the Ukraine-EU association agreement in favour of a deal with Russia, but the thing is, Russia actually offered a better deal than the EU. This pissed off the nationalists (read: Nazis) because they really hated Russia, and pissed off the NGO liberals because they hated Russia and loved the EU.
But Yanukovych did actually have his own constituency, which was the Russian speaking east, and they saw the “revolution” as the nationalists undemocratically imposing their will on the country. The new government pretty much immediately sent in the army to quell the unrest, and this sparked the civil war, which led to the eventual Russian invasion. Once again, I will reiterate that Zelensky was elected as the peace candidate who would stop the war, but the nationalists sabotaged the peace process. He went to the frontline and ordered them to stand down, and they stonewalled him. I saw the video, and this was before AI video was even close to convincing (will smith eating the spaghetti era).
So what you have is a Ukrainian state that’s captured by, on one hand, extreme nationalists who idolize Stepan Bandera (a fascist genocidaire from WW2), and on the other by NGO liberals, who aren’t much less bloodthirsty and see the easterners (really, see the whole working class) as expendable post-soviet refuse. The NGO liberals don’t fight on the front, and while the Azovites did put up a fight at Mariupol, they seem to mostly fill the line with middle aged conscripts they drag off the street rather than have the hardcore nationalists do the fighting.
As far as what they’re fighting for, the reforms of the post-maidan government just amounted to decommunization and Ukrainization - that is to say, they removed old Soviet monuments and banned the Communist party; and they suppressed the main minority language of the country. They didn’t make life better for anyone, they didn’t strengthen labour laws or the welfare state, they just did a right wing culture war. Actually, that’s not quite correct - they also cut natural gas subsidies and lifted a ban on sale of farmland (i.e. to foreign investors),, and privatized the economy further.
They could have had a peace treaty, and the only cost would have been giving eastern Ukraine a seat at the table. Instead, the nationalists and liberals opted to let their country be used as a kamikaze against Russia. Sure, Russia could have just not invaded, but they saw the issue as an existential red line. The west knew that they would eventually respond to provocation, but they figured there would be little cost to the west, and didn’t care about the cost to Ukraine. Now there have been entire generations of men fed into the meat grinder with no end in sight, and Russia continuing to slowly advance. In what world is this better than just signing a peace treaty and ending the civil war? Do you think Europe is going to rebuild what’s left of Ukraine once this is over?
Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Yes it is, the USSR was destroyed and the economy was liberalized.
Tbh I think people are trying to hard to dunk on you rather than actually explaining how we see things and why.
Opposing war is generally the correct take, in most cases, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should turn it into a hard rule, because there are exceptions. The American Civil War is an example I think most people would agree with. As violent and bloody as it was, it was still outweighed by the centuries of systemic violence baked into the system.
As Marxists we concern ourselves less with “who started it” (an inherently subjective question) and more with who’s fighting it and why, and what outcomes can be expected. War is the continuation of politics by other means, so to understand a conflict it’s important to look at the political questions at stake, on a case-by-case basis.
Without getting into the specifics of these conflicts, that’s what’s meant by “anti-war-ism,” not just opposing war, but doing so without really bothering to understand the specifics of a given conflict.
It’s not bad being anti-war, but easy to being instrumentalized when not understanding the full context or even normalizing the dismissal of parts of it as enemy propaganda. It makes you naive
History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars; we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible.
So I understand the point you’re making about NATO vs Russia.
But with Ukraine, all the events you point to are more akin to civil war/civil unrest. I don’t see how that directly conflates with Russia’s invasion being just. Especially since there is little evidence of Russia directly suffering from that unrest and all evidence points to Russia actually fanning the flames of that conflict leading up to their invasion.
The thing that’s extra backwards is that if you’re claiming Russia’s war is just, by those merits Israel’s war is more just. Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and it’s not even disputed that they provide funds for Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention Israel has actually been invaded in recent history.
I don’t think either is just, but Russia’s stance is more tenuous than Israel’s, which is why this graphic seems to be pushing a narrative more than anything else.
So I understand the point you’re making about NATO vs Russia.
Namely that the western powers deliberately engineered a crisis and neo-nazi takeover of Ukraine to use it as a battering ram against Russia?
But with Ukraine, all the events you point to are more akin to civil war/civil unrest
I absolutely do not agree. What I’m describing is literal apartheid and ethnic cleansing, endorsed at the state level both tacitly and explicitly in force of law. In fact that’s one of the main reasons we can clearly identify both the Banderite regime in Ukraine and the genocidal aparteid entity as the “bad guys” - they are doing the same crimes against humanity using the same methods.
Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and it’s not even disputed that they provide funds for Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are all allies in a resistance struggle against the most evil country on earth, backed by the waning empire of the West. The colonial genocidal “state of Israel” should be disbanded and the settlers should go back to the West from whence they came.
but Russia’s stance is more tenuous than Israel’s
I absolutely do not agree with this at all. Israel is a tiny waning colonial outpost and worldwide pariah while Russia is an enormous civilizational state and natural resources superpower. However it is easy to confuse the situation when they have near total media control in the West while Russia rolls over and doesn’t even try.
In what way is Ukraine a battering ram? All the issues you point to are internal issues in Ukraine (even if we were to believe that they are NATO backed). I never heard a Ukranian backed assault on Russia (until after Russia invaded). Even if we believe everything you claim none of that indicates a planned attack on Russia.
Best case you’re arguing that Russia is making a pre-emptive strike because they believe there is some external threat from Ukraine in the future, but that seems kinda weak.
I think maybe you’re not understanding that US literally did a color revolution in order to put the neo-Nazis in power because they wanted the war to happen.
If you want evidence that this callous logic was being employed in the west, this think tank paper from 2019 lays it out quite clearly. They correctly predict that the interventions they advocate for will lead to war and Ukraine will be destroyed. Apparently they don’t see this as a problem, as long as Russia is “extended”.
It’s all just psychopathic scheming to control natural resources. Ukraine (Russia), Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Libya are all just manifestations of the violence they will engage in to maintain global hegemony
Ukraine put it in their post-Maidan constitution that they had to join NATO. Sure, Ukraine’s civil war was its own internal affair, but the main issue at play was hostility to Russia and wanting to join the West. Why would Russia see this as anything but a threat? More NATO bases, another NATO member, and this one adjacent to the Russian heartland. A lot of people scoffed about US bases surrounding Iran, but it turns out that those were there for a reason - attacking Iran! In retrospect, Russia’s position looks more rational rather than less.
We fundamentally disagree on your literal first premise.
Violence is inherently nothing. It’s not something that can be looked at without the context in which it occurs. Violence against oppression is ALWAYS a good thing. This isn’t up for debate. Violence against oppression is historically the most effective way of ending said oppression.
do you know what’s harmful? capitalism. i’d suffer every pain for the world to achieve socialism. yes, you might not believe it, having a comfortable life in the global north, but there are people willing to be harmed to achieve liberation.
Imagine thinking it’s bad to be anti-war.
It’s not saying it’s bad to be anti-war, it’s saying that it’s a naive position in this case - a simple “anti-war-ism” as opposed to the more complicated “fully understands the core of modern geopolitics”. “Anti-war-ism” is still placed exactly opposite social darwinism, but is adjacent to both “fully understands geopolitics” and “dogs of US empire”.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this, just that they’re acting rationally in the face of a threat. In fact, Russia should be the weakest link in the anti-imperial camp. The Russian Federation would have been perfectly happy to join NATO and assist with the oppression of the third world, but for one reason or another, NATO wasn’t interested - my personal theory is that Russia would have provided too much of a counterbalance to the US within NATO, potentially making NATO dangerously independent. Thus, Russia remained a designated enemy even after it liberalized. But, the specific reason isn’t the main point, the main point is that Russia has been forced by circumstance into the anti-imperial camp, while Ukraine has chosen to be a tool of the imperial camp. It’s as simple as that, and you can be as anti-campist as you want, but there are objectively two camps, and no unaligned alternative. If you asked any Ukrainian nationalist, they would agree that they are with the west against the oriental hordes.
Ukraine was the culmination of a process of bringing former eastern bloc states into NATO in order to surround and weaken Russia. Russia understood this, and had Ukraine as a red line. From the Russian point of view, a Ukraine allied with the west would be a hostile state placed at the furthest southern line of advance of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That is to say, any potential attack on Russia by NATO would begin where the Germans stalled out (at least on the northern and southern fronts), and thus have a much greater chance of reaching Moscow. Or, a bit more realistically, NATO missiles and aircraft could be based much closer to the Russian heartland than before. You can argue that their assessment would be wrong, but that only makes sense if you trust NATO over Russia, where even a neutral position (i.e. don’t trust Russia or NATO) would hold that Russia’s concerns are valid.
Even then, Russia didn’t immediately invade Ukraine after the 2014 coup (Maidan wasn’t a revolution, it was just a seizure of power by right wing nationalists). Yes, they seized Crimea and supported the eastern separatists, but they didn’t fully commit until it was completely clear that no diplomatic solution was forthcoming. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky had been elected as the peace candidate - people wanted the civil war to end, and that’s what he campaigned on. He ended up being too weak to stop the nationalist militias from fighting, so the war continued, and with a diplomatic solution dead in the water, Russia took their shot.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia. Ukraine placed itself in the imperialist camp, and this forced Russia solidly into the anti-imperial camp. To support Ukraine is to support a victory for imperialism. Thus, to support both Palestine and Ukraine is to support the empire being weakened in one region and strengthened in another - it’s a geopolitically incoherent position because it comes from a geopolitically naive read of the overall situation.
💡💡‼️
Thank you for posting this. It’s extremely cogent, coherent, and straightforward. I really appreciate this as it helped clarify and solidify my understanding. 🫡
You must be talking to different tankies than I am.
“Tankies” do not give weight to ideas of abstract moralism.
lol. Now THIS is what you call a straw man. I like how you got proven super wrong then you were like “well some of u fucking tankies believe this shit” Lol. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up & read dude. Read something that wasn’t written by an asset. God damn
Eh, some people go a little too far with things
Pretty sure Ukrainians just want better living conditions just like anyone else. And “the west” happens to have arguably the best living conditions; I’m not surprised anyone would want to be at this table. Are you really arguing that people are looking at Russia as a nice place to go live? I’ve never actually set foot there, but from the other side of the world it doesn’t look good. Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Also, invading Ukraine as a preventative measure against NATO expansion turned out to be spectacularly stupid, because it directly led to NATO expansion to a direct neighbour (Finland).
But yeah, in general I’m not on the side of countries invading other ones. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong, what Israel is doing in Palestine is wrong, and what the US is doing in Venezuela/Iran/Greenland/Cuba is also wrong.
Do you think they were ever going to give Ukrainians a chance to be “western”? They just wanted to use them as a tool against Russia, not elevate them to a western European standard of living. The entire inciting incident of Euromaidan and all of this was Yanukovych’s cancellation of the Ukraine-EU association agreement in favour of a deal with Russia, but the thing is, Russia actually offered a better deal than the EU. This pissed off the nationalists (read: Nazis) because they really hated Russia, and pissed off the NGO liberals because they hated Russia and loved the EU.
But Yanukovych did actually have his own constituency, which was the Russian speaking east, and they saw the “revolution” as the nationalists undemocratically imposing their will on the country. The new government pretty much immediately sent in the army to quell the unrest, and this sparked the civil war, which led to the eventual Russian invasion. Once again, I will reiterate that Zelensky was elected as the peace candidate who would stop the war, but the nationalists sabotaged the peace process. He went to the frontline and ordered them to stand down, and they stonewalled him. I saw the video, and this was before AI video was even close to convincing (will smith eating the spaghetti era).
So what you have is a Ukrainian state that’s captured by, on one hand, extreme nationalists who idolize Stepan Bandera (a fascist genocidaire from WW2), and on the other by NGO liberals, who aren’t much less bloodthirsty and see the easterners (really, see the whole working class) as expendable post-soviet refuse. The NGO liberals don’t fight on the front, and while the Azovites did put up a fight at Mariupol, they seem to mostly fill the line with middle aged conscripts they drag off the street rather than have the hardcore nationalists do the fighting.
As far as what they’re fighting for, the reforms of the post-maidan government just amounted to decommunization and Ukrainization - that is to say, they removed old Soviet monuments and banned the Communist party; and they suppressed the main minority language of the country. They didn’t make life better for anyone, they didn’t strengthen labour laws or the welfare state, they just did a right wing culture war. Actually, that’s not quite correct - they also cut natural gas subsidies and lifted a ban on sale of farmland (i.e. to foreign investors),, and privatized the economy further.
They could have had a peace treaty, and the only cost would have been giving eastern Ukraine a seat at the table. Instead, the nationalists and liberals opted to let their country be used as a kamikaze against Russia. Sure, Russia could have just not invaded, but they saw the issue as an existential red line. The west knew that they would eventually respond to provocation, but they figured there would be little cost to the west, and didn’t care about the cost to Ukraine. Now there have been entire generations of men fed into the meat grinder with no end in sight, and Russia continuing to slowly advance. In what world is this better than just signing a peace treaty and ending the civil war? Do you think Europe is going to rebuild what’s left of Ukraine once this is over?
Yes it is, the USSR was destroyed and the economy was liberalized.
Tbh I think people are trying to hard to dunk on you rather than actually explaining how we see things and why.
Opposing war is generally the correct take, in most cases, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should turn it into a hard rule, because there are exceptions. The American Civil War is an example I think most people would agree with. As violent and bloody as it was, it was still outweighed by the centuries of systemic violence baked into the system.
As Marxists we concern ourselves less with “who started it” (an inherently subjective question) and more with who’s fighting it and why, and what outcomes can be expected. War is the continuation of politics by other means, so to understand a conflict it’s important to look at the political questions at stake, on a case-by-case basis.
Without getting into the specifics of these conflicts, that’s what’s meant by “anti-war-ism,” not just opposing war, but doing so without really bothering to understand the specifics of a given conflict.
it’s bad being anti-war against fascists.
It’s not bad being anti-war, but easy to being instrumentalized when not understanding the full context or even normalizing the dismissal of parts of it as enemy propaganda. It makes you naive
You need a lot of justify the loss of life these wars cause. Putting aside whether they’re justified or not, neither of them meet that threshold.
Genuine question, but has there ever been a war where the expansionist was justified?
No, and NATO expansion is being the root cause here
History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars; we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible.
–Quotations from Chairman Mao ZeDong Chapter 5 War and Peace
Okay, but what’s the justification for supporting Russia from that perspective, what makes that war “just”.
Decades of provocations from the West
So I understand the point you’re making about NATO vs Russia.
But with Ukraine, all the events you point to are more akin to civil war/civil unrest. I don’t see how that directly conflates with Russia’s invasion being just. Especially since there is little evidence of Russia directly suffering from that unrest and all evidence points to Russia actually fanning the flames of that conflict leading up to their invasion.
The thing that’s extra backwards is that if you’re claiming Russia’s war is just, by those merits Israel’s war is more just. Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and it’s not even disputed that they provide funds for Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention Israel has actually been invaded in recent history.
I don’t think either is just, but Russia’s stance is more tenuous than Israel’s, which is why this graphic seems to be pushing a narrative more than anything else.
Namely that the western powers deliberately engineered a crisis and neo-nazi takeover of Ukraine to use it as a battering ram against Russia?
I absolutely do not agree. What I’m describing is literal apartheid and ethnic cleansing, endorsed at the state level both tacitly and explicitly in force of law. In fact that’s one of the main reasons we can clearly identify both the Banderite regime in Ukraine and the genocidal aparteid entity as the “bad guys” - they are doing the same crimes against humanity using the same methods.
Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are all allies in a resistance struggle against the most evil country on earth, backed by the waning empire of the West. The colonial genocidal “state of Israel” should be disbanded and the settlers should go back to the West from whence they came.
I absolutely do not agree with this at all. Israel is a tiny waning colonial outpost and worldwide pariah while Russia is an enormous civilizational state and natural resources superpower. However it is easy to confuse the situation when they have near total media control in the West while Russia rolls over and doesn’t even try.
In what way is Ukraine a battering ram? All the issues you point to are internal issues in Ukraine (even if we were to believe that they are NATO backed). I never heard a Ukranian backed assault on Russia (until after Russia invaded). Even if we believe everything you claim none of that indicates a planned attack on Russia.
Best case you’re arguing that Russia is making a pre-emptive strike because they believe there is some external threat from Ukraine in the future, but that seems kinda weak.
I think maybe you’re not understanding that US literally did a color revolution in order to put the neo-Nazis in power because they wanted the war to happen.
If you want evidence that this callous logic was being employed in the west, this think tank paper from 2019 lays it out quite clearly. They correctly predict that the interventions they advocate for will lead to war and Ukraine will be destroyed. Apparently they don’t see this as a problem, as long as Russia is “extended”.
It’s all just psychopathic scheming to control natural resources. Ukraine (Russia), Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Libya are all just manifestations of the violence they will engage in to maintain global hegemony
Ukraine put it in their post-Maidan constitution that they had to join NATO. Sure, Ukraine’s civil war was its own internal affair, but the main issue at play was hostility to Russia and wanting to join the West. Why would Russia see this as anything but a threat? More NATO bases, another NATO member, and this one adjacent to the Russian heartland. A lot of people scoffed about US bases surrounding Iran, but it turns out that those were there for a reason - attacking Iran! In retrospect, Russia’s position looks more rational rather than less.
you know oppressed people stop being oppressed because of war right?
Or, war itself is a tool of oppression.
This mf thinks it was oppressive to end slavery in the US
This ml thinks slavery was ended in the US.
There are more slaves in the US now than there were in 1860. So tell me again, what is war good for?
“The civil war was bad because it didn’t end all slavery, we should have just let the Confederacy continue”
This is just an expansion on “violence is inherently bad” which as an anarchist I hope isn’t something you believe
Violence is inherently harmful.
Some people and institutions do deserve to be harmed. Those people and institutions are almost never who actually gets harmed in war. War sucks.
Must be nice to be this naive.
We fundamentally disagree on your literal first premise.
Violence is inherently nothing. It’s not something that can be looked at without the context in which it occurs. Violence against oppression is ALWAYS a good thing. This isn’t up for debate. Violence against oppression is historically the most effective way of ending said oppression.
we got a fascifist over here
do you know what’s harmful? capitalism. i’d suffer every pain for the world to achieve socialism. yes, you might not believe it, having a comfortable life in the global north, but there are people willing to be harmed to achieve liberation.
❤️
So would you oppose a war of liberation, such as the Vietnamese fought against Japan, France and America?
No, not really.
But neither of the wars mentioned in this ‘infographic’ are wars of liberation.
So you lied when you said war is a tool of oppression and you oppose all war
“The Palestinian struggle against the Israeli settler colonialists is not a war of liberation actually”
You might possibly be the least intelligent person I’ve ever seen.
Scratch
and a 
bleeds, as usual
War is defined by the instigator. Israel’s attacks are not a war of liberation.
2nd time I’ve had to post this today:
Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook
I ain’t got time for a whole damn audiobook. If you want to make a pro-war argument, make it yourself.
People ain’t got time for reading and educating themselves, but have enough confidence to spew ignorant comments.
Its about ~30m read.
imagine thinking capitalists will just decide they are rich enough and give you everything for free.
And you’re going to fix this by having one capitalist country blow people up in another capitalist country?
vassals blowing up the emperor, yes. that’s how it usually goes.
You must be seeing some very different wars than the ones I’ve seen.
In the wars I’ve seen, ‘emperors’ are rarely blown up, but vassals getting blown up is extremely common.
hence why we root for them when they are winning.
e g. Ukraine
❤️
Every goddamn war ever.
For little kids is fine.
No actually is not fine either, it’s better for kids to understand reality.