GivingEuropeASpook

you must have never met the liberals who act like Europe is devoid of "dumb racist hicks" who don't "vote against their own best interests". Some Americans consider Europeans more human than the Rust Belt, or the Deep South, or Texas.

IDK it might be beneficial to know if it's ANOTHER one of the 15 intelligence agencies the US operates...

and they wonder why young people uniformly hate corporations and what they've done to the environment

I tended to have communism/socialism condescendingly poopooed as "well-meaning" but "never really working because human nature".

Anyways, time to learn about the french revolution and the reign of terror, which in no way should be viewed as an indictment of liberal revolutions the way the red terror does for socialism.

I think liberals extend some courtesy to other ~~white~~ "Western" nations.

it was americans. even if the government helped, it was common americans, poor and rich, who murdered and repressed natives every day until the land was solidly occupied.

Even so, there have been Americans who opposed what their country and countrypeople were doing, and fought to oppose it. Were they in the minority? At times, sure, but the American political system has always given disproportionate power, first to landowning Anglo-Saxon Christian men and now to (still predominantly the same group tbh) rich people and the people they get to follow them.

the average american was evil back then and remains evil as fuck to this day, because that's what not being an anti-imperialist leftist tends to mean if you live right in the middle of the imperial core

If you view everyone who isn't actively radicalized as evil then I think you're losing touch with some of the very people that need to also be radicalised. The "average American", when polled time and time again routinely profess to have viewpoints waaaaaay to the left of mainstream discourse. Is it not our job as socialists to get to the see the full extent of what it means to really believe in equality and justice?

There are some pretty radical US teachers who don't teach American mythology, and unless they're in Florida or another state banning CRT and gender-affrming sex-ed, they aren't breaking the law in the process.

Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won't be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.

I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.

I'm inclined to agree.

My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.

For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements "no". I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).

While I've been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.

it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation

Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).

what if....no you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?

This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.

...possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?

I mean, I don't think there's any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I'm sure there are people who'd want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we're already talking about the reverse.

I can't think of specific examples but there's definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to "political solutions" meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)

These aren't good or something I'm arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.

I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.

Me too, that's why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.

While i don't doubt Russian civilians have gotten hurt or killed, ukraine isn't targeting city centers or hospitals deliberately the way Russia has.

bro why'd you retype the Quora post exactly word-for-word?