re: So what exactly are people implying with all the Ukraine virtue signaling?

quote:

---

The libertarians have a way of cutting through the BS.

---

The Libertarians have become a joke. They’re all socialists, and live in lala land.

It’s 2022s “international version” of 2020s George Floyd and BLM.

There’s always a “cause” to be had with our Leftist authoritarian Corporatocracy.

You will be judged as to how well you adhere to and comply to The Narrative.

Virtue signaling, simply means you are signaling that you are virtuous. That's it. There is nothing beyond that.

No idea, but not relevant to my question. She is the spouse of the US President in a sovereign nation by invitation. How is air support within that nation an act of aggression?

quote:

---

The most virtuous people I've ever known never once had to signal it.

---

Exactly. Virtue signalers are not actually virtuous at all. It's performative.

The OP is reading too much into it. It's simple narcissism, nothing more.

quote:

---

Putin demanded the US honor its promise to not expand Nato even one inch to the east. Putin’s being silly with that demand. He should have talked to a few Indian tribes in the US to see how good a job the US government is at doing what it promises.

Likewise Putin demanded Ukraine comply with the terms of the Minsk II agreement from 2016 where they agreed to stop shelling the Donbass region

---

These issues require diplomatic solutions, not an illegal war.

When you have Victoria Nuland running your Ukraine/Russia policy for her husband, his brother, and Bill Kristol, diplomacy is not happening.

This woman has been killing it lately.

quote:

---

In an article titled "Why Russia Went to War Now," Antiwar's Ted Snyder explains that Putin likely made the decision to invade because Kyiv wasn't respecting Minsk II and because future NATO membership with Ukraine was being kept on the table while weapons poured into the country from the US.

"Zelensky wouldn’t talk to the leaders of the Donbas, Minsk was dead and Russia feared an imminent operation against the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas," Snyder writes. "At the same time, Washington had become a leaky faucet on promises of flooding Ukraine with weapons and open doors to NATO: two red lines Putin had clearly drawn."

But, again, Zelensky couldn't enact Minsk because it had been made abundantly clear to him that he faced a horrific death by fascist lynch mob if he did. If the choice is between taking a chance on a US proxy war and getting Gaddafied in the public square, I think many leaders around the world would opt for the former.

So Zelensky made peace with the Nazis, whose will for Ukraine aligned with Washington's.

---

quote:

---

But what this means is that every major factor which led to Russia's decision to invade could have been nullified by the US government. A guarantee of no NATO membership for Ukraine could have been made. The weapons supplies could have been stopped. And Zelensky and his government could have received protection from the US military against the armed fascists who would repeat their violent acts of 2014 upon them.

It would have been wins all around. We wouldn't be staring down the barrel of nuclear armageddon. Ukraine would have been spared the horrors of an insane proxy war. Western powers wouldn't be sending arms to literal Nazi factions. And the US would actually be protecting Ukrainian democracy, instead of just pretending to.

But, again, we are only indulging in fantasy here. Fighting Nazis, protecting democracy and waging peace are not things the US empire actually does in real life. The US is the most tyrannical and murderous regime on earth, by a truly massive margin, and it will happily risk the life of everyone on earth if it means securing planetary rule.

But sometimes it's nice to imagine the kind of world we might be living in if we were not ruled by psychopaths.

---

The U.S. Could Have Prevented This War Just By Protecting Kyiv From Nazis.

I have been following a variety of sources closely throughout the war and I have seen that we provided intelligence to Ukraine that was used in the sinking, where have you seen that it was a US missile that sunk the Moskova?

quote:

---

What are they implying "standing with Ukraine" means?

---

Clapping seals. Or in social media speak, I support the new thing and can't think for myself.

quote:

---

I am not flying a blue/yellow flag, but I do support Ukraine in the conflict. What does that mean?

It does not mean that I think Ukraine was some idyllic utopia. Only that Ukraine did not deserve an invasion by its neighbor.

The US should argue Ukraine’s case diplomatically. The US should impose sanctions upon Russia as the aggressor. The US should sell Ukraine whatever weapons it needs and even provide intelligence.

It does not mean that US troops should fight in Ukraine.

---

You're not supporting Ukraine, you just have an opinion on Ukraine, which is all the "I stand with XXX" nonsense means 99% of the time. "I have an opinion on XXX" makes them sound as if they're not actually doing anything besides virtue signaling. Which is true, but that's irrelevant.