I'm not even sure why you opened up so antagonistic? Do you think people that defend Assad, deny China's genocides, deny the USSR's genocides, and justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine are leftists? Because I've literally argued with people that are "totally leftists" then they tell me that holodomor never happened, or that homosexuality is an element of Western bourgeoisie degeneracy or some shit. I'm 100% fine with calling them red fascists.
I told you why I started how I did. I saw two people thinking they had the right to deride and decide you was an authentic leftist and who wasn't. I'm my experience people can be fiscally rifgt but socially left. They can be nationalistic and use socialism to underpin it or be right wing nationalist who are happy to kill leftists. They can be state socialists or none state socialists. And when you factor in personal isms the whole thing can be a sea of grey.
Are they defending Assad or are they ,rightly pointing out that the US has no legal right to be there when the Russians do because Assad asked for assistance which AFAIK isn't illegal?
We are all told to despise Assad but the US used Assads Syria to torture people it had brought there specifically for that reason. My own experience is that I don't recall anyone actually supporting Assad for his policies or style of leadership.
I mean I don't really care that they are illegal. I'd condemn them even if it wasn't illegal.
The reason I include legality is because it is a key element in trying to apply the same standards to all parties and that imo gives people a better chance/hope of balance and subsequently a better chance to see through propaganda. Everyones propaganda.
Can you elaborate on why you believe the West created this situation?
I am going to drop the " whose a leftist "thing now precisely so subsequent posts are at least in the ball park of the theme of this thread/subforum.
1 The US invited Ukraine to join NATO knowing it would start a shit fest and be sure to create tensions. The eastward march of NATO would NEVER be accepted by the West and reasonable people imo should understand why the Russians have been seeking security assurances. Minsk 2 includes a no NATO Ukraine. Infact we could argue why, when the Warsaw Pact disappeared NATO too didn't disappear and a new , more modern, defence agreement supercede it.
2 The US invited Ukraine to join NATO despite the fact that , for the forseeable future, Europeans don't want it to join precisely because of the trouble it would cause for them being fairly reliant on energy from Russia. And it is no secret that the US would be happy to sell more of its energy resources to Europe at Russias expense. Money is nearly always behind these things. See how much Ukraine would lose in gas transit fees if/when nord stream 2 starts delivering.
3 The MINSK 2 agreement has the support of the UNSC , including the US, the OSCE France Germany Russia and UKraine and , according to some, international law/UN Charter etc but it is noticeable how the US hasn't put any pressure on Ukraine to to actually get it done. It, MINSK 2, was referred to as a kind of zombie like state where it wasn't dead or alive and so the troubles just go on.
The US bankrolls Israeli occupation of Palestine but it is noticeable that when the US says enough is enough they can reign in Israeli actions. Why not do it in the MINSK 2 situation and force people into actually resolving the immediate obstacles and prevent bloodshed?
4 Just as Russia has its imperial wishlist so does the West. To think the leaderships on either side actually give a flying about Ukrainians is a stretch imo so to try to put all of the blame on the Russians is to renounce any ideas of the western imperialism that is also playing its part.
3 Given the above
She really got under your skin there