Azas
Seasons End
Oh, and a separate, special, friendly (sorta) deconstruction note to @____no5.
So, we’ve clashed several times over the war in Ukraine. I was outraged by the West’s inaction—at its core, I was arguing for the defense of democratic principles and the rules-based order. You, on the other hand, kept insisting that ‘the West should have listened to russia’s concerns about NATO expansion’ and taken russia’s so-called ‘legitimate interests’ into account. That was essentially your position. You can already see where this is going, right?
So… now it’s payback time. I’ll admit, I’m enjoying this a bit—like a gourmet savoring a particularly tasty dish. Okay, here it goes:
You defended the invader’s (russia’s) ‘legitimate interests’ in Ukraine. So why are you now opposed to the United States pursuing its own ‘legitimate interests’ (oil, rare metals, etc.) in Venezuela? Hello? Why the contradiction? At the root of it all, you were the one arguing for the ‘rule of the strong,’ not for the set of rules adopted by the Western world after World War II—territorial integrity, sovereignty, and all that democratic bullshit. And now, this morning, you’ve received another gift: another big bad wolf doing what it thinks is necessary for itself or its country. Why aren’t you applauding this one? I find that rather strange.
Why is it okay for russia to invade a sovereign country, but for the U.S. it’s suddenly a no-no?
Or are you just being you—remaining blatantly pro-russian? I can see how the russian infosphere is squealing like butchered pigs today. This U.S. move is a major blow to putin’s regime—and to autocratic regimes everywhere. (Even though it’s obvious that Trump’s move isn’t pro-democracy, just pro-business.)
Isn’t it ‘practice what you preach’?
Mic drop.
So, we’ve clashed several times over the war in Ukraine. I was outraged by the West’s inaction—at its core, I was arguing for the defense of democratic principles and the rules-based order. You, on the other hand, kept insisting that ‘the West should have listened to russia’s concerns about NATO expansion’ and taken russia’s so-called ‘legitimate interests’ into account. That was essentially your position. You can already see where this is going, right?
So… now it’s payback time. I’ll admit, I’m enjoying this a bit—like a gourmet savoring a particularly tasty dish. Okay, here it goes:
You defended the invader’s (russia’s) ‘legitimate interests’ in Ukraine. So why are you now opposed to the United States pursuing its own ‘legitimate interests’ (oil, rare metals, etc.) in Venezuela? Hello? Why the contradiction? At the root of it all, you were the one arguing for the ‘rule of the strong,’ not for the set of rules adopted by the Western world after World War II—territorial integrity, sovereignty, and all that democratic bullshit. And now, this morning, you’ve received another gift: another big bad wolf doing what it thinks is necessary for itself or its country. Why aren’t you applauding this one? I find that rather strange.
Why is it okay for russia to invade a sovereign country, but for the U.S. it’s suddenly a no-no?
Or are you just being you—remaining blatantly pro-russian? I can see how the russian infosphere is squealing like butchered pigs today. This U.S. move is a major blow to putin’s regime—and to autocratic regimes everywhere. (Even though it’s obvious that Trump’s move isn’t pro-democracy, just pro-business.)
Isn’t it ‘practice what you preach’?
Mic drop.
