this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
351 points (99.4% liked)

Political Memes

11499 readers
2991 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world
351
[despairing laughter] (infosec.pub)
submitted 1 week ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course citing article 51 is an un-serious legal justification for invading Ukraine. Just as it was when cited for the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq.

You do fucking realize that most wars have Article 51 cited, precisely because the key component of Article 51 is that conflicts must be reported to the UN with cause, right? You realize there are an average of two citations of Article 51 a year since the 1950s, right?

Of course not. The USA invented citing Article 51 as a magic casus belli button. How could I have been so foolish as to not have seen it.

Ukraine isn’t a puppet, they aren’t being forced. That’s your framing of what you claim is my position, not what I’ve ever said.

This you, buddy?

image

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

literally right after that:

You’re the one saying “puppeteer”. Why frame it as either 0% agency or 100%? Clearly there are degrees here. Ukraine is its own actor and the US and it allies are more interested in using their leverage to push against Russia rather than for Ukraine. They can both be true.

Again, look at Afghanistan in the eighties. It too was its own polity. At the same time, US support and arms clearly had a substantial role in how events transpired, with consequences felt far more heavily by the civilians it was supposedly in aid of.

you really like cherry picking, don't you?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You’re the one saying “puppeteer”.

"I didn't SAY puppeteer, I just said that I saw Ukraine as lacking agency beyond that which is decided for them by The West 🥺"

I never know if people like you actually believe what you're saying, or if you know it's bullshit but can't resist any angle to simp for genocide.

Why frame it as either 0% agency or 100%?

"Well, maybe the Ukrainians don't want to be genocided a little bit" isn't really much of a rebuttal to the idea of you being a bootlicker who regurgitates imperialist propaganda.

Again, look at Afghanistan in the eighties. It too was its own polity. At the same time, US support and arms clearly had a substantial role in how events transpired, with consequences felt far more heavily by the civilians it was supposedly in aid of.

"Afghanistan deserved genocide by Russian arms too" isn't much of a fucking rebuttal either, bootlicker.

No response to the Article 51 issue, I note. Did you decide that was a point a bit too stupid even for you to champion?

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not making the points you seem to think I'm making. Don't know what to say, honestly.

Also, here's the text of Article 51:

Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 51

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m not making the points you seem to think I’m making.

This you, buddy?

but I can also recognize that my country literally set the legal precedent Putin cited to the UN when he started it.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes? I'm arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the "right of self-defense" as pretext to invade other countries. I don't see the contradiction you seem to see?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries.

  1. The use of 'self-defense' as an excuse to invade other countries long predates Article 51.

  2. Article 51 was invoked several times in blatantly unjustified wars by other states before the US invoked it in '64.

I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?

Because you have no understanding of the history you purport to parrot.