• @Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    301 year ago

    I’m surprised Russia voted for the ceasefire. I would expect them to appreciate the distraction.

    • Zorque
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      They appreciate being seen as opposing the west even more. Especially when it comes to toothless UN resolutions.

    • @Gxost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      They don’t want Hamas to be eliminated. Russia is always for ceasefire when its side is loosing.

    • @FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      Dmitriy Polyanskiy, Russia’s representative, said US diplomacy was “leaving scorched earth in its wake”. He said if an immediate ceasefire was blocked by the US again, how could the country look its partners in the eye? He called on the US to “make the right choice” and support the demand for an end to violence.

        • The russian hypocricsy should not distract from the truth therein. What happens now is the US foreign policy dream. Instead of having to destabilize the middle east by themselves, they just need to supply Israel with more weapons and money, so they will do it for them.

    • Annoyed_🦀 A
      link
      English
      91 year ago

      It’s solely due to US being the bad side along with Israel, they’re trying to shift the narrative.

    • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      They know America is going to veto it because they’re israel’s bitches. And it looks way better for countries like Iran which supply Russia with drones to bomb Ukraine with.

      Ironically Russia is winning support with their stance on human rights over America in this conflict. Zelensky sucking Netanyahu off also doesn’t promote the Arabs views of Ukraine.

      Even China dunked on America yesterday at the UN, that’s when you know it’s bad

    • Muyal_Hix
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -51 year ago

      People when they find out geopolitics is complex and there ano real bad guys like in the movies.

      • ArxCyberwolf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Pretty sure a country that’s committing mass genocide with imperial ambitions who commits daily war crimes and meddles in other countries’ affairs to sow division and distrust is very clearly “the bad guy”. How can you claim otherwise? You can’t “both sides” the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

        • Muyal_Hix
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          Yeah. And who keeps giving all those weapons and money to Israel while they are carrying out a genocide?

          Let’s face it. A single country can be the bad guy in one situation and the good guy in another.

          Also, it’s always funny when the US accuses other countries of foreign interference and genocide, because they surely had no problem doing that to Latin America.

            • Muyal_Hix
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.

              When African countries declared themselves independent they mostly got support from the USSR, while the US and the west in general acted in a very hostile way.

              Anti-apartheid movements got labelled as “terrorists” by the US, but on the contrary, received a lot of support from Russia.

              Ir certainly says something that nobody in the west opposed apartheid until socialism was no longer a threat in the 90’s

              • @teichflamme@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                That is kinda funny, because the USSR was incredibly racist and you’re still not very welcome in Russia as a person of color.

                You need to research about African decolonization movements back in the 60’s.

                “Despite the widely reported Soviet support for the ANC and otherwise liberation movements, the Soviet Union also engaged in some trade with South Africa during the apartheid era, mostly involving arms and some mineral resources.”

                So, they delivered weapons to the Apartheid regime?

                I’ve seen an interesting article stating this: " Less well appreciated is the role that external authoritarian actors have played in facilitating this deterioration. Russia stands out in this regard. Among other aims, undermining democracy has been a strategic objective of Russia’s Africa policy for the past two decades. " https://africacenter.org/spotlight/russia-interference-undermine-democracy-africa/

                • Muyal_Hix
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  When it comes to racism, that still doesn’t change the fact that the west has a terrible history of it. There is a reason why you see the AK-47 in a few African flags.

                  How is the west treating Africans and Palestinians right now?

                  And again, they have also no problem dealing with (and in some cases supporting) African authoritarian regimes. So how are they morally superior to Russia in that regard?

            • You realize that it was the Sovjets that turned WW2 around and paid most of the blood for Europe to be freed from the Nazis? About 20 Million of the victims of WW2 were Sovjets. About another 10 Million were Chinese. The western Allies had a very chill WW2 compared to what these countries and their people sacrificed against the Germans and Japanese.

              • @mean_bean279@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                They only paid a human price because the soviets literally threw people at the problem. We can see the same problem today in the war in Ukraine. They actively either don’t arm, or barely arm soldiers and then expect them to take positions against well armed and trained soldiers. The allies were supplying tanks, small arms and other supplies to the Soviets. Let’s also not wash over the fact that the soviets literally allowed hitler to develop weapons in their territory as long as they benefited from it. They only lost as many troops because their leadership was stupid and ineffective.

              • @teichflamme@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                You realize that the Soviets were in Hitler’s side when shit started and wanted to annex a chunk of Poland and the east?

                You also realize that your prime example dates back 80 years?

                • The Sovjets never were on Hitlers side. Hitler was very clear from the beginning what he thinks of the communists, that he mingled into a “jewish bolshevik” world conspiracy. The Hitler Stalin pact was to buy the SU time to prepare for an attack from the Nazis.

                  Also 80 years is not a long times in historical terms, when the measure is “ever”. Incidently a lot of the turning two blind eyes unconditional support for Israel now is justified with the Holocaust that was in exactly the same period of time.