• Durotar@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    His plane has crashed and he's on the passenger list, but it's not proven yet that he was on the plane. He's the person, who faked his death in the past.

  • HornyOnMain
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hexbear and default lemmy libs coming together to laugh at prigozhin getting merced is so goddamn funny lmao.

    Literally the no more brother wars meme

  • eatmyass
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's as if leftists do not actually like Putin or any of the other ghouls on the Russian side, but are instead critical of NATO and willing to consider NATO opponents as rational actors instead of cartoon villains.

      • jackmarxist [any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I oppose NATO over other Ghoulish countries because it's a greater threat to the world right now.

      • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia is a country run by cartoon villains. Can you not picture Shoigu sneaking up behind someone with a large round bomb that says ACME on it, only to discover that the fuse has been accidentally lit by a soldiers cigarette?

      • arc@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is. However Russia is obviously crafting messages to appeal to those on the extremes. When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they've been gotten at. When you see people from the hard right screeching about Ukrainian immigrants or the cost of the war vs America / Europe first then you know they've been gotten at.

        As for Prigozhin, I think most people, even Russians are glad that he is dead but for different reasons. Seems clear that Putin murdered him for his disloyalty but nobody in Ukraine is going to mourn his loss for the spent force that is Wagner.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.

            • Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              1 year ago

              gaddafi was sodomized to death with a knife. i can hardly think of a more cartoonishly evil organization.

                • Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You're saying that the NATO bombings and the NATO-backed rebels had nothing to do with it..? He was fleeing a NATO air strike.

                  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nope, you're shifting the subject, you were talking about how he died precisely.

                    • Romeo [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary's "we came, we saw, he died." quip?

                • StalinForTime [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter's head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:

                  • https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/021012/gaddafi-executed-french-revelations-libyan-agent
                  • https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/french-secret-service-killed-gaddafi-sarkozys-orders-reports
                  • https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20121001-french-spy-killed-kadhafi-sarkozys-orders-papers-claim
                  • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210759/Gaddafi-killed-French-secret-serviceman-orders-Nicolas-Sarkozy-sources-claim.html
                  • https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/20/sarkozy-in-libya-case-what-does-it-all-mean-

                  Hegemon's have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          "Cartoon villain" here means "a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result." Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.

          The left views NATO as evil not because it's full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries' ruling classes.

          • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
            ·
            1 year ago

            I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lmao who tf is

              endors[ing], defend[ing], or deny[ing] the crimes committed by [notable] communist leaders such as … Pol Pot[?]

            • JamesConeZone [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now

              Lots of terms need defining. "Illiberal" just means not capitalistic, which yeah that's all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.

              So it's just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              It's essentially cope for them not just supporting "nominally" socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.

              • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                ·
                1 year ago

                Isn't Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don't get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA's war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.

                • Kieselguhr [none/use name]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the Russo-Georgian war imperialism

                  Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.

                  They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.

                  "From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"

                  Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.

                  If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.

                  "supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).

                  When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.

                  We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.

                  I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.

                  • StalinForTime [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah it's important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term 'imperialist' with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.

                    Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.

                    If someone calls Russia 'imperialist' in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn't apply isn't relevant beyond the fact that there's confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.

                    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      Good points. I also wouldn't be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.

                      Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone's done that leg work it'd be Michael Hudson but I've not come across it if he has.

                • captcha [any]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There's a concept called "critical support", which most "tankies" are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won't hear much of that criticism publicly though because that's counterproductive.

                  Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.

                  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    US bombing is bad, but Russian bombing is ok? Why do you not apply the same critical spirit to both the USA war crimes and the Russian war crimes?

                    • eatmyass
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      deleted by creator

                        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.

                    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      I don't think that the Germans had the popular support of Sudetenland in their annexation.

                        • captcha [any]
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          1 year ago

                          This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.

                            • captcha [any]
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.

                              • Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".

                                Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.

                • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You're in a thread with half a dozen comments like "wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?", followed by a bunch of "tankies" explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.

    • HornyOnMain
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      big emojis

      hexbear-logosolidarityliberalism

      "prigozhin got whacked lmao"
      crab-partycrab-partycrab-party

        • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nobody even knows what people who say that mean. By context it seems to imply moderate right wingers or some "enlightened centrists" which ironically will also join the choir of calling people that. Just trumpist lingo "woke/lib/commie/feminist bad"

  • Utter_Karate [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I'm gonna sound like a fringe conspiracy theorist here, but you guys,,, What if this was no random accident? What if someone intentionally made the plane crash? But who? And why?

  • RonJonGuaido [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    honestly how could you be stupid enough to get on plane w/ that guy? this was the single most predictable event of the entire conflict.

  • buh [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    brace-watching never get in a helicopter (or other small aircraft)

  • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    2 months ago:

    In exchange, he gets to not be dead for a while.

    Prigozhin should probably be careful touching doorknobs for a while regardless.

    Does it count as calling it if I got the method of assassination wrong?

  • Sasuke [comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    tiny dancer playing softly in the background . . .

    He just died? Wow. I didn’t know that. You are telling me now for the first time. He led an amazing life. What else can you say. Whether you agreed or not, he was an amazing man who led an amazing life. I am actually sad to hear that. I am sad to hear that.