Vietnam showed that the public is a great threat to the war effort. Governments will not allow media to show what warfare is really like nor how the war is actually developing.
Liberals have never forgiven wikileaks for showing American soldiers celebrating the deaths of civilians, and during Obama’s presidency no less! “But do you mean to say that the adults in the room murder people for money? But that’s absurd! That would mean that American society is just run by a glorified psychotic mafia! And that I’ve been helping them commit mass murder my entire life!”
Mass murder is fine as long as it's polite
A society of polite nazis that doesn't even care if (at least) a million of its own people die from the plague
that’s absurd! That would mean that American society is just run by a glorified psychotic mafia! And that I’ve been helping them commit mass murder my entire life!”
Two time Medal of Honor winner and he’d say it was to push America interest abroad, in a bad way.
Americans were mostly against Vietnam because a bunch of their family and friends were coming back in bodybags
I don't think any amount of Ukrainian casualties would make any big difference in American perception
The likely western reaction to realising the scope of the carnage would probably be an even more fervent war craze: "Evil Putler genocided a hundred thousand innocent Ukrainians! We must give Ukraine a death star so they can guard our Aryan garden from the Asiatic hordes!"
Americans were mostly against Vietnam because a bunch of their family and friends were coming back in bodybags
And because the draft was more "impartial" in the sense that middle-class white people were sent to die instead of the "volunteer" military we have now where recruiters target poor and disenfranchised minorities to become the foot soldiers fed to the meat grinder while the officers are still upper-middle class college graduates (especially those from the places like the Naval Academy, West Point, or the Air Force Academy).
We saw with the second Iraq War that Americans didn't really care too much because the well-off upper middle class people just sent their kids to college while the poor black and white people got sent to die in Iraq.
Like you said, Ukranian casualties don't even matter so I guess this is the evolution of imperial warfare (impartial draft > volunteer army > foreign proxies).
Actually the draft made the composition of the army much more poor/diverse in racial backgrounds. The enlisted army being entirely or primarily poor people in America is a myth and complete pro-soldier cope. American soldiers are richer than the average American, and they primarily come from a caste of upper middle class career warriors from career warrior families.
The only good american soldier is a defector
I'll settle for a mutineer tbh, but at that point is there really a difference?
infiltrate it and impregnate you.
Sometimes literally when they have too much fun
Only when the empire is forced to use conscription. As long as they can use mercenaries, proxies, intel officers and enlistees then there will never be a public mass movement against imperialism. Americans are just too chauvinist to care unless their skin is in the game.
Literal Ukrainian living in the country on the verge of being drafted into the meat grinder: pls stop the war
Huge brained liberal who is better than them: Sorry sweetie, time to go die to own PUTLER
It wont end. They ended Afghanistan to live out thier Cold War Nazi's revenge against the commies fantasies and turn Ukraine into a burn pit to clear inventory of trillons of unused equipment. The soil and water in Europe's bread basket will be contaminated for 100s of years. Food prices will skyrocket. The European "way of life " will end to support the inflationary costs of the wars and no western political candidate will ever be able to point to Europe as an example of what's possible under the crap-it-all-ist system ever again.
Once they get bored of that they'll instigate a formal 3rd world war in the 2040's to stop any peace divided.
They did a coup in 2014 with the help of Nazi militias.
Nice condescending ableism at the end there. Libs stay classy.
but how are you going to then shit on an extremely popular people's movement that ousts the entrenched power system?
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces. This is evident by the fact that the grassroots protest leaders where shut out of the new government to make space for neo-Nazis handpicked the US state department (you can hear Victoria Nuland say "fuck the EU" around 10 mins into this video before selecting the new Ukrainian cabinet).
And hey, I too used to be a smug liberal who looked down upon everyone who wasn't in lock step with US propaganda, but if you're trying to convince people of something I'd recommend you don't bookend every comment with reddit-ass insults to people's intelligence.
was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people
That's seriously
, like how was it a popular movement when the next president was a literal billionaire oligarch who supported the protests?Wasn't that guy voted out as soon as there were formal elections though?
None of this refutes what I argued above, that the protests were quickly taken over by right wing groups propped up by the West, with the new government handpicked by the state department:
That probably would have been more convincing if I didn't personally know people who took part in the revolution and then fought Russia,
Cool are they happy with Victoria Nuland selecting their government?
or if Zelensky didn't have sky high popular support,
I haven't seen an approval poll inside of Ukraine for a while but the guy banned opposition parties so it's not like you'd have any other political option at the moment lol.
or if he wasn't Jewish.
Seriously very funny to pretend like a Jewish president wipes out the neo-Nazi reality of the Azov battalion.
the insults are just to amuse myself, and because you deserve them.
Whatever gets you off then, I guess.
Zelenskyyyy's approval ratings were in the toilet before the war, and wartime approval ratings don't really count to me, that's like saying Dubya was beloved because of how high his approval ratings were after 9/11.
It would be great if Euromaiden was an actual popular revolution that turned control over to the people, but any legitimate popular energy was hijacked by western-backed right wing forces.
Nevertheless, that still means there are millions of Ukrainians who would prefer association with the EU over Russia. I think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted (however misplaced we might find it) to be in the EU and aligned with the US?
Agreed, but I think it's also important to specify that the coup refers to how the US Ambassador basically hand-picked the provisional government that ended up in power immediately after, and not the protests that started after the initial announcement that the EU deal was off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
I like this video for this very reason. It unequivocally states that NATO's eastward expansion provoked the Ukrainian invasion without regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
think a lot of people take issue with the framing of it all as an artificial coup without popular support because that implies there's no one in Ukraine who wanted... to be in the EU and aligned with the US.
I think that implication mistakeningly conflates the protests with the resulting coup. The protests had real popular energy behind them and spotlit grassroots leaders (until the western-backed literal Nazis took center stage). The coup pushed those people and their interests aside in favor of whoever Victoria Nuland favored.
And if I recall, the Nuland picks were voted out first chance the Ukrainian people got.
lol, you're just gonna get another comment deleted for ableism, so I won't even bother to address anything you said
Im kind of sick of having the same pointless "debate" about established facts with dumbass ignorant dog-headed do-nothings dickhead like you, about how the "revolution" was led by far-right militias 1 2 3 4 5 because you never engage with the texts, you all repeat same tired thought-terminating cliches while being weird condescending debatebros that think you're the cleverest pig in the mudpile. So instead I'll link you this video, which you can ignore, misrepresent, strawman and nitpick instead.
Looking forward to seeing you ask this same question very soon, despite already having had it answered!Liberalism 101:
Liberals do not argue in good faith. Every time they start JAQing off and question the validity of your claims, they mean to attack your character and have no interest in the claims themselves. It is not contradictory that they ask the same questions again and again, because their questions aren't questions, they're attacks.
Yeah, but you never know, once in a blue moon they're genuine, and really it's more about the lurkers than the poster. However that also means that as soon as they've been responded to in good faith it's immediate mockery if they fail to do so themselves as well
Yeah it's called the military industrial complex, maybe you heard of it
Or maybe you actaully believe all those nazis who couped the government in 2014 did it for the "love of democracy" and not for the western paychecks in the form of massive arms transfers
Fuck it doesn't even need to be arms transfers, lord only knows how much dark money is being sifted around this conflict. Hell, Zelensky was already in either the Panama Papers or was it the other one? Who knows how much pure cash is just floating around or weapons are being sold around Eastern Europe.
or was it the other one?
Yeah he was in the Pandora Papers
Zelesnkyy is a hundred millionaire before the conflict. I have to imagine he's in the billions by now, after 150+ billion dollars sent to Ukraine that he's been grafting off of
When do you think the war will end? Just guess at the date. I am curious.
Probably will drag on for a decade until 2032 with Russia slowly coming out ahead via attrition like the Syrian Civil War.
That one's tough to answer. I'm hopeful that they'll reach Tokmak by the end of the year, but I don't know that they'll take it this year. Russia knows the logistical importance of that place, and they'll throw everything at it to retain it. Plus, there's only like 2 months left in the year before fighting conditions get too degraded by weather. So, I'm guessing that the lines will start to stabilize again at the end of October or beginning of November, and we won't see much progress until next Spring.
The good news, though, is that they're gonna be getting a bunch of F-16s from the Netherlands, so that will help out immensely in the next offensive drive. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to take Tokmak early on in the year, and then make a push towards Melitopol. Could be celebrating another independence day by the end of next year.
Of course, a lot depends on conditions in Russia. Anything could happen. We've already seen one major coup attempt from Wagner before they stopped about 200km away for some reason. I don't think they're going to try again because they stupidly put all of their upper leadership together in the same plane... but I think it's possible that another coup attempt could happen from a different faction. If Putin is removed or killed, I don't think the war will continue. I think the next guy will just blame Russia's poor performance on the last guy and will call it a day.
sure those wunderwaffen f-16s will do wonders lmao. Just like the leopards 
You seriously think Ukraine is going to win? Tell me more about their counteroffensive
F-16s have an incredible range, and can shoot down Russian helicopters from 100km away.
Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
They have better training, better equipment, better morale, and an iron will.
The country that has exhausted it's reserve battalions and is forcibly drafting men, while preventing these same men from leaving the country, and which has had several reports describing how the troops at the front have basically no training, is somehow better trained and equipped than the Russians? Ukraine, the country that frequently has equipment issues, and which has complained that the Russians are capable of incessantly shelling them, has equipment issues? Ukraine, the country that now saw the need to make use of cluster munitions? That country?
Tell me more of your tactical knowledge oh wise one. Did you study logistics under Albert Kesselring?Yeah sure, the F-16s which crash in the rain and that can't handle anything but pristine landing strips will definitely turn the war in Ukraines favor. Good luck with crewing it too lmao.
That's the F35. The F16 though is outclassed by modern russian jet fighters like SU-27 so it's a moot point. Unless the west is giving F35s it doesn't matter, they're generations old tech that cannot handle S300s let alone S400s and S500s.
The F35 also has issues with rain? I'd be interested in learning more, if you have any good sources.
The F 16 does as well. Or at least as far as I know it does - it's not really my field of expertise, but I hyperfocused on it at one point. They have quite a few crashes as a result of heavy rain. Here's one such story. This forum tracks accidents and mishaps for f-16s as well, and it seems to me as if it handles rain worse than others.
Russia has the best anti-air defenses in the world. Period. Also, the F-16s will presumably have to land at some point. When they do land, they can be hit with Russian missiles. Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16. You might be able to keep the thing from crashing into the ground, but beyond that?
I'm sorry, we've all seen this argument before. It was the Bayraktar drones and Javelins, those were the gamechangers. Then the HIMARS. Oh, but the M777s and Caeser howitzers, that'll win them the war! Then the Leopards and Bradleys, which now lie destroyed in minefields, and the Patriots, which are hit by hypersonic missiles (with liberals argue that due to Newton's Third Law, if you think about it, the Patriots also hit the hypersonic missiles). Now it's the F-16s and the Abrams. It's been a never-ending treadmill of the West bringing out weapons and equipment, promising every single time that THIS will be the thing that makes Putin pee his pants and surrender to the Ukrainians. It hasn't happened, and given the appalling deaths and casualties and destruction on the Zaporozhye front these past two months with Ukraine's third army being ground down to scrap, it doesn't seem like it ever will happen.
Also, I feel like it probably takes more than 6 months of training to become proficient in flying and fighting in an F-16.
Don't take my word for it, but I think I've read somewhere that Ukrainian pilots won't be ready to fly F-16s until about this time next year at best
Don't forget about cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells
Arent the F-16s incredibly finicky too? Like don't they require specialised airfields?
Lmao, can't expect they'll have issues with landing fields being slightly dirty when they're all within range of russian munitions.
Allegedly they need a spotless runway to take off as they don't have a filter to protect the air intake against debris.
That probably won't be an issue in Ukraine though, it's just an active warzone.
Holy shit I didn't know Americans were that fucking arrogant. "Who needs a filter, we'll just never land anywhere dirty"
Putin actually outlined it well in his statement in 2022
The offloading of military equipment is just a byproduct
Didn't Putin say that he would only serve two terms as leader and not change the rules to keep power?
For some reason, I just don't trust that guy.
This is the height of liberal "analysis", not a hint of rigor or knowledge of the factional politics or geopolitical pressures that determine what choices are viable for leaders to make
No, instead it's just vibes based politics arrived at thru bullshit personal intuition
"I DoNt tRuST tHaT gUY" give me a fuckin break, say something thats even half way incisive
I recognize that username, it's the same person who defended dropping nukes on Japan over on Lemmygrad.
lmao of course, the opinions these maggots share are all stamped out of a DC think tank template
No matter what, the US state department is always right
these maggots
Agree with everything you say, but let's not do that.
Respectfully but why? Is there a particular reason I shouldn't call a bunch of bootlicking fash "maggots"?
Not the person above but dehumanizing enemies is unnecessary unless your essential message is hate and genocide. Fascists aren’t monsters from another dimension, they are regular-ass people. That’s part of what makes it so fucked up. My leftism is bound up with humanism and I don’t want to lose my humanity in order to save humanity.
Edit: misgender corrected
I understand your viewpoint and there's nothing wrong with that humane approach, but I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended that spoke to me, it honestly doesn't
I'm genuinely not interested in humanizing fascists, the various plans people like that have for people like me prevents me from taking a proposition like that seriously
Fascists in power and in the streets might as well be "monsters from another dimension" for the effect they have on my life and the people I care about, I can't afford to subscribe to any philosophy that could potentially diminish that crucial recognition
I think we agree on the important part, fascists have to be taken seriously. I don't endorse kid gloves in dealing with fascists. I just feel that calling them maggots is thought-terminating, it is a crude imitation of the fascists' own language, it does not actually do anything except to encourage fascist-like thought patterns even if nominally leftist. Fascists provide enough material to prove themselves vile; we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization on the basis of "free speech" or whatever usual nonsense works to get liberals to defend them since after all, through liberal eyes, all ideology is sacred, only action can be immoral.
In general, it is a choice and definite strategy to dehumanize people. There is no dichotomy of humanize or dehumanize. They continuously dehumanize themselves through their ideology, it is sufficient to point to the ideology and let it speak for itself.
I'm sorry but that's basically a dedux of respectability politics, I'm really not interested in even accepting a debate framework like that because it's fundamentally a pre-compromised position, since your opponent will always define what is and isn't respectable, hence your worry of "we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization"
Fascists also did not invent the concept of political insults or caricatures, and my use of insults sends a signal to lurking fash in this online space (and they are lurking) the same way a baseball bat in the hands of a bartender sends a signal to any fash scouting for potential friendly gathering locations
And most importantly dehumanization of enemies alone is not the basis of fascist language, instead it's the racialization of enemies thru class collaboration that defines the fascist lexicon
If I wanted to "imitate" fascist language, I'd be using racial slurs instead of just a figurative comparison to insects
your opponent will always define what is and isn't respectable, hence your worry of "we don't need to hand them any possible claim of victimization"
This is a really good point. I shouldn't have put so much emphasis on perception in the last comment.
Racialization is a more succinct term for what I don't want. While calling fascists maggots is not strictly a form of racialization (I don't think it is logically possible for an oppressor to be racialized), again it uses similar thought patterns, reduction of humans to some essential identity, on which basis to exterminate that race/group. I don't think this is a way of thought that should be encouraged. Fascists should be fought as the horrible people they are, not as caricatures, because that actually dilutes the reality of fascism. The idea more and more takes hold that fascist ideology is a result of a flawed brain, and not a problem with humanity more generally.
uses similar thought patterns, reduction of humans to some essential identity, on which basis to exterminate that race/group
no, it quite literally doesn't. fascists can renounce their beliefs and all of my ire falls away. I cannot renounce being trans or brown -- these are actually essential qualities. ideologies are not essential.
I'm not sure how to read this but bad faith and my only response is what I already said.
It is not bad faith to refuse to use hateful language. I don’t want to be hateful, and using terminology and manners of speech of the people who I oppose doesn’t sit right with me. And on a practical level I don’t think it helps the leftist cause in any way, more likely hurts it.
The fact you recognize that fascists could renounce their beliefs, to me implies you don’t truly view them as maggots, which is what I meant above.
fascist-like thought patterns even if nominally leftist
sorry, this is where you lost me. refusing to recognize the humanity of the people who wish to wipe me from the face of the earth is using fascist-like thought patterns? no, it's recognizing them as enemies who want me dead -- my only position on them is renounce your beliefs and stop attempting to build fascism or accept your death. this position cannot be equated with the fascist thought patterns because literally the only thing you have to do to prevent your death is walk away from fascism. I cannot walk away -- they wish me dead for who I am, my actual essence.
Look I agree with much of what you said but I also think you missed my point. I’m not asking for you to be nicer to the fascists or to show mercy. I’m not “clutching my pearls” as someone else accused me of, because I’m not defending the fascists. I get it because most leftists have been oppressed/bullied, and sometimes it feels good to flip it around for once. I’m not interested in policing the emotions of hurt people so I’ll probably stop engaging at this point.
I'm not advocating genocide but I do hate them.
Why shouldn't I.
Can we please not do the "we have to respect the fascists humanity" here.
They've all posted a Facebook meme about shooting Trans people in the time you clutched your pearls.
I never said we need to respect the fascists or even be nice to them.
You can be mean to fascists without using their own manner of speech.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree i dont think acknowledging their fundamental lack of humanity is "using their own manner of speech" I think it's pretty critical to understand thay what we're up against doesn't have what you would consider motivations and goals that align or even make sense in a broader society but maybe thats just me giving humans too much credit.
If the fascists see others as bugs for existing, I will do the same to them
Someone cited a speech Putin gave.
I pointed out Putin has a long history of lying [and other shady activities]
What part confused you?
Biden has a long history of lying and other shady activities, yet you accept his narrative uncritically.
It is true that politicians are not always truthful. Unfortunately you have to educate yourself to determine what the lies are, not just pick a team and a set of lies to believe.
The part where the facutal statements became unfactual. If you don't trust someone you dont just go "everything they say is a lie", you investigate what they say (u less of course you're a gullible idiot, in which case you just believe what you're told by your own "good guys" that surely don't have an agenda and surely have never lied). You also do this with people you trust by the way.
Why did they cite Putin's speech? Did you ask? Did you engage in good faith?
Or did your brain just go, "that's a bad guy, now I don't have to listen and I should fight even more"?
I am once again begging you Marvel brained libs to recognize that Russia is a country not a guy in a costume.
I'm saying the national interests of the Russian Federation are not decided on the whims of an evil madman. And when you reduce them to a single person you fall into self blinding behaviors like completely ignoring a speech to the world about a nation's cause for war when determining that country's motivation for going to war.
You saw something like the wager mutiny happen and seriously think that absolutely no-one backed that because Putin would simply kill them all with his dictator mind powers rather then the country genuinely supporting him?
Buddy, if you wanna use Mao as a big scary incarnation of Evil, you're somehow even wronger (more wrong?) than your ukraine takes, which I almost want to admire.
Hitler, no. Mao, yes. Because Mao was amazing and Hitler was the first to introduce the concept of privatization, beloved of his fellow corporate puppets Biden, Trump, and many others.
Let's try operating at your level for a minute. Taking a stab at that good faith debate I always hear about from you libs.
Are you saying putin is the only person in Russia.
Wait shit that actually makes way more sense as a criticism than anything you've said I'll have to practice more.
This you doing apologia for the murder of 200,000 Japanese civilians and Korean POWs?
Show
I honestly think we're spending too much time and effort debating in good faith with libs.
They constantly bitch were all operating in bad faith, and then it's just this over and over again.
You ask them to explain themselves and they say some reprehensible shit.
More ppb.
Often it's not the ones arguing who come around; it's the ones reading along.
I honestly think we're spending too much time and effort debating in good faith with libs.
no more half measures walter
This right here. Imo, online arguments are for the third party audience more than the other person most of the time.
Agreed. I'm not the most articulate person, and seeing some of the takedowns of lib bullshit here really helps me find the words to express my views
Tens of thousands of Korean slave laborers died in those nuclear blasts my man. The USA has never given a fuck about helping anyone who wasn’t bourgeois. They dropped the bombs to warn the Soviets to stay out. Try to read history that wasn’t written by Nazi apologists.
Not that I doubt you, but really tens of thousands of Korean slaves died from the nukes? I've never heard that before and it seems pretty significant.
APnews reports make claims of 20 000 other sources I saw in google range, some papers claim 30k or more
That's correct. Forced laborers put into Japanese industry as the war effort faltered. The nukes were intended for industrial cities.
“Would you incinerate thousands of defenseless women and children to save your family?”
What a psychotic question holy shit
Not even “to save your family.” His question was less than that. Would you kill those people, just to do something? No requirement that the action is effective, only that it demonstrate your protest against your situation.
The libs are just as much bloodthirsty psychopaths as half the self admitted fascists.
But the libs act like they have the fucking moral high ground over you while defending it.
The Japanese had been begging to surrender for six months—on one condition, that the emperor retain a ceremonial position. The USA granted this condition after the surrender because they didn’t actually care and thought that a fascist leader would be useful in fighting communism, which is also why they placed fascist collaborators in charge of South Korea, thereby leading directly to the Korean War.
Read the room bud. You walked smug as pig shit into our own house to smear your poop rhetoric all over the walls and we have been beyond hospitable. Either kindly go touch grass, or read something in good faith and reply as such.
Just because you lack the neurons to acquire a basic understanding of historical events, doesn't suddenly mean that those events arent complicated. But if you're so into people being sacrificed for the will of American capitalists, I suggest you go volunteer in Ukraine.
Japan was already ready to surrender on terms the US accepted after dropping the nukes
not only did the nukes kill thousands of Korean slaves in the two nuked cities but the US subsequently killed 20% of the Korean population, forcing the population underground into caves, during the Korean war just a couple of years later. they leveled virtually every city in order to prop up a brutal police regime - so miss me with this "what about the Koreans and Chinese" nonsense.
dude you got owned and outed as a racist , just take the L and make a new username
I'm racist for thinking Burmese lives are equal to Japanese lives?
Please, tell me nore.
Looking forward to another "we need to defederate" post tomorrow
How dare you! Mods! Mods! Ban this poster! They’re too strong!
Lmao that's the most basic schoolyard comeback there is. What are you, 12? What's next? "I know what you are, but what am I?"
Hey there! I’ve read over your comments in this thread and they’re super interesting! There’s a few points you made I’d like to refute, but I’m at work at the moment and don’t have time to copy and paste it from my blog - take a look here and see what you think.
Have a good day!
You're defending the US military killing three times as many civilians as Russia has killed in Ukraine in the entire Ukraine war ("The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.") and calling us bad people for calling out you for being a disgusting war crime apologist who's defending murdering >200,000 thousand innocent women, children and men who were unfit for combat as well as tens of thousands of Korean POWs imprisoned in the two cities (it's worth noting that despite your claim that the Korean people supported the bombings both the DPRK and the South Korean government condemn the bombings nowadays due to how many Koreans were killed)
What the hell is this question? Is my 8 year old bro being deployed to the beaches of fucking tokyo?
This might be hard for a genocial monster like you to understand but most victims of violence do not wish further violence upon others let alone mass violence on everyone they know and love to "make the pain stop." Those people would've preferred to actually be alive right now you fucking demon.
No, I would not kill thousands of innocent uninvolved people for no reason, knowing that it would have zero effect on my situation. Tbh, even if it would save my family, I’d struggle to kill 200,000 innocents (trolley problem).
Miss me with the “yes or no” smug loaded question.
Dropping the bomb didn't force Japanese surrender. It just ensured that surrender was to the Americans rather than Soviets.
It's good that the USA didn't employ unit 731 to kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese/Burmese/Koreans after WW2. That would have been terrible.
The nukes were definitely dropped to save those people.
Wait what
I knew about the nazis BUT FUCKING UNIT 731?!
So, you couldn't actually answer 'yes' or 'no.'
Also, I don't think using 9/11 as an example of ending a war is really all that smart.
It's already been explained to you that the nuclear bomb did not cause the surrender or end the war, it was just a show of power against the Soviet's, here's an article about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20150106195034/https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ (internet archive link because the original is locked behind a pay wall)
Any argument that the bomb saved lives in the long run is either a lie or purposely ignorant, now on the other hand if you wanted to say that the Japanese civilians deserve it for not overthrowing their fascist government that's when comparisons to 9/11 come up (because it's the exact same argument that Bin Laden used)
I know you Americans are taught some wack-ass way of reading were you just learn to memorize the shape of words rather than the function of letters, but it's still surprising to see that your reading comprehension can be this bad
You were provided with more good faith responses than you deserve in your entire life, and yet you still come back to this smug thought-terminating cliche. Since you believe that citizens are responsible for the actions of their government, here's a suggestion: Kill yourself.
How does q factual statement become unfactual, just because it was uttered by a liar? You know what you do when you distrust a powerful persons stated claims? You check them. If Donald Trump told the sky was blue, would you then think it was some other colour, or would you look up to check for yourself?
Didn't Putin say that he would only serve two terms as leader and not change the rules to keep power?
i honestly don't know
I fail to see from that how it would be in the West's interests for Russia to declare war (sorry, a special military action) on Ukraine
I an pretty sure even Mitch McConnel explained that the war is a "good investment" for the US because it damages Russia with zero risk to American land or soldiers.
Right. Yes. I said that in the very next sentence. It's an investment. The hardware is being spent towards some purpose. But the original guy I responded to seemed to think that we were giving away all our old hardware 'cause we just didn't want to pay for upkeep, which is dumb.
The upkeep of old equipment is part of the cost in the analysis of whether or not to give it away, and the MIC loves any excuse to increase the budget, so I don't think the other person was being dumb.
I'm sorry, did you just imply that Russia invading Ukraine was part of some weird US plot to offload out-of-date military equipment?
The US has legalized bribery, military contractors make their money by lobbying for war, ans politicians see military spending as economic stimulus. The SMO is a direct response to the Westerm side (US vassals) constantly escalating and refusing to implement Minsk 2 during active shelling of Donbas population for 8 years. The SMO itself was announced shortly after a significant uptick in shelling of Donbas by UA.
This approach of constant escalation, of pushing far beyond what their own countries would and havw tolerated, is a function of the MIC. It's a big part of the reason that war is desirable to those making decisions. They frame it as being strategic, a way to increase "national security" and launder a new campaign to "update" arsenals against mounting "threats" (potential peers).
How, exactly, would the US have convinced Russia to invade, in your mind?
Through a decades-long campaign to encircle the country, undermine its trade influence and development, and push hard against red line issues they know will trigger significant responses from them. It is no surprise that poking the bear gets a response and this was all very intentional. Shelling of Donbas by Ukraine escalated massively shortly before the announcement of the SMO, for example.
And did they also convince Russia to invade in 2014, or was that purely Russia's decision?
What invasion are you referring to, here?
Lastly, just to satisfy my own curiosity: were you dropped on your head as a baby?
@Civility!
Silly tankie, Russia invaded Ukraine because Putler is evil. That's it. He's evil and hates freedom-loving Ukrainians because they're the only democracy in Eastern Europe.
This isn't really a post about the news. Try posting this kind of stuff to c/politics next time.
Look at all of the brigading of hexbear in this thread! And by that I mean folks in other instances participating in a thread that was probably on their front page. Can you imagine!?
The Ukrainian will be banned since this is probably the combat footage sub which is filled with people who want to invade the entire world.
Nah worldnews is pretty much the same now. The mods ban anyone with a slightly different opinion on any topic.
Worldnews has been a sewer for years and years
IDK, because they only expressed emotions and opinions, and didn't say anything that necessarily contradicts the narrative of the war's purpose, only that it's not as gloriously one-sided as Western Media portrays, which doesn't strike me as all that shocking of a take from someone living in a war zone.
Okay so, with the iraq war timeline, this seems to be getting closer to the point where liberals begin to gaslight us and say they never supported the war.
(i.e. when it comes to casualties and many other things)
Obviously this is just kinda coming out of my ass, but I'm almost certain that 100,000 people have already died. Can't say what the exact number is obviously, but I imagine it's the kind of thing that the lib media would rather not release because it would dampen people's enthusiasm for it
As someone who is very much pro-Ukrainian in this conflict and has talked to many Ukrainians, anyone who believes the hype that Russia is days away from collapsing (again) or that Russia's army is made entirely of uneducated starving peasants who have never held a gun before is taking crazy pills.
War economies can last a very long time, and this kind of attritional artillery based warfare on both sides (they started with almost the same doctrines) with a contested airspace is an absolute meatgrinder.
Curious, what is your rationale behind describing yourself as pro-Ukrainian.
There's a few different aspects to this:
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.
Finally, there's the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it's different when you share a language and culture.
I think where you are deviating from the wider hexbear opinion here, and also where I think you're wrong, is based in a belief that precedents are meaningful first off. Before this war was even thought about, these realities were already clear to all powerful people in the world. Acting from the basic material assumptions (and proving that they are ALREADY true) is not making them true. Not having nukes has been a death sentence to countries (eventually, without socialism) since the moment the first one existed. This war doesn't impact that nor how rational global actors work. The ability to do "naked aggression" literally never went away, it was just hidden in plain sight with shitty western justifications. Every world power understood this well before this war, and their rational/justifications won't be impacted. Only new material conditions to work from will arise. Russia's loss or success actually only would give 1 major new piece of info to the world: is it possible to offensively take in the Imperial core indirectly without the result being total destruction of yourself? That's what we're going to learn. We learned from Korea and Vietnam that fighting defensively can work. We learned from middle eastern imperial wars that guerilla struggle is possible to slowly tire out the US.
We will Also learn small details about fighting and material and weapons and strategy, of course. But the worldwide impact is literally just "is it possible to defend yourself from US interests WITH OFFENSE?"
Also I agree with CyborgMarx, best case scenario is Donbas is free to choose to be Russian along with Crimea and Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between NATO and Russia after a loss
You've obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.
Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people's willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, "rules-based diplomacy" just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That "just a bit" part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.
The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It's very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it's the honest truth.
As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you're saying with that final sentence is "Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists".
I disagree entirely that that "just a bit" exists at all. Direct imperial wars were limited only by the conditions and interests of the imperial power, and the justifications only resulted in extra work AFTERWARD the decisions were made to make convincing arguments (or find a way to hide the war).
With all due respect, you're not just influences by perspective or lack of impartiality, but by your own interests. Being just west of Ukraine means that the fascistic border for expropriation (I mean from the West, but also possibly from Russia) will come closer the further west Russia can push. You benefit at least minmially from global imperialism by having that expropriation lead to imports on your side. I don't blame you for desiring to not be hurt by that "border" movement, and I have to hope I will stay strong and support my comrades and movement when that inevitably comes to my place and not try to gain/maintain personal benefits. It's always violent, just usually somewhere else.
This article is the best description for my understanding of Fascism: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/
Russia is just as fascist as every capitalist government. But so far, Crimea hasn't been experiencing the violence anymore than any other group and less than from the imperial core when they were under Ukraine. If "more fascist" means more violent and expropriating more", which is in line wiht that essay, then I think Russia is less fascist. They have legitimately experienced less of the expropriation than before. I think Donbas would be the same, and there's a chance that that continues westward as fascism attempts to consume the border regions for profits.
I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word "fascist" means compared to you, which I'm glad you've identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we're just talking about different things. I'll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I'll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.
Yeah my definition is more "niche" but I just fundamentally disagree withe philosophical underpinnings of definition like Umberto Eco gave and such. I think it's clearly a liberal definition lacking in material or dialectical understanding of the world and fails to ever define anything really.
Regardless, definition itself isnt the basis of the convo. If what I call fascism was called "time-location-based-expropriation-interests", we could still have the convo. we're talking about real things regardless of the word. I still think we disagree after that though, unless the essay also convinces you of an evil you didn't previously understand and results in you agreeing with my analysis or so.
I love how Lemmy libs always go "hexbears just harass everyone they disagree with, they never civilly discuss anything" and most of the time I see disagreements on hexbear go this way.
I want to thank you for a well-thought out and patient explanation of your viewpoint, it's stuff like this that leads me to wanting to learn more, and which keeps me curious and critical.
Really A+ posting, thank you for taking the time.Thank you! It's those kind of effortpost that make this site more than just a pig with shit on its balls
I prefer the good ol
spoiler
Over everything else, but sometimes the libs give you a nice tasty bait, one you just gotta nibble on and work hard to clean right off in front of everyone you know
Show
But genuinely, fine with discussing until someone obviously deserves a PPB, but until I see a slur or a knowing defense of fascism (I give temporary allowances to those who seem confused), I give my time to the posting wars
The ppb is good when people are being smuglords or otherwise engaging in bad faith, but ppb shouldn't be posted in response to people asking questions in earnest. We all learn something everyday, and we're all susceptible to propaganda, so asking about conflicting data should be supported.
Being a debatebro is instant :gulag: tho
You talking to me? You talking to me? You must be talking to me, because theres nobody else here
I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine
Who cares, socialists in imperialists countries don't support their side in proxy wars, period.
Yeah nah bro the Russian speakers of the Donbass and especially Crimea don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed by a bunch of bloodthirsty Ukrainian nationalists hopped up on fantasies of revenge
Also the "naked conquest precedent" in international politics was already set by the US in 2003, hence the neutrality over this current conflict by all states outside the west and it's puppets
having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have
the US has been doing exactly this and setting up puppet states since the end of WWII, has never stopped for a second, and will never stop until they're forced to. there has never been any other precedent. prior to WWII, colonialism ruled the world.
US wars since WWII:
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Laos
- Indonesia
- Lebanon
- Cuba/the Bay of Pigs
- Dominican Republic
- Korea again
- Cambodia (on the side of the fucking Khmer Rouge)
- Lebanon again
- Grenada
- Libya
- Iran
- Panama
- Iraq
- Somalia
- Bosnia/Serbia
- Haiti
- Kosovo
- Afghanistan
- Yemen
- Iraq again
- expansion of the war in Afghanistan to north-west Pakistan
- Somalia again
- Libya again, this time destroying the country so badly that slave markets opened on the streets
- Uganda
- Niger
- Iraq a third time
- Syria
- Libya a third time because no shit the Islamic State took up residence, who could have seen this coming
the idea that there has EVER been a way to prevent wars without nuclear proliferation does not respect the historical record. states seeking to arm themselves with nukes is deeply rational. Cuba was under constant threat of invasion until the Soviet Union deployed nukes there -- the US refused to negotiate with the Cuban government. then, once there were nukes, what do you know! suddenly the US will negotiate and will agree not to invade Cuba.
I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
Hey thank you for taking the time to write out a well-thought out response. You're obviously knowledgeable on the subject, and I'd like to learn a bit more myself.
Russia did not object to Ukraine signing the EU Association Agreement - their only problem was the existing tariff-free agreement between Russia and Ukraine that would have allowed EU goods to flood the Russian market but not in return. Putin even offered to hold a tripartite meeting to resolve this problem - the EU rejected this proposal.
Would you happen to have a good source for this statement available?
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
Respect the disengage, it was clear enough from the "disengage." that we could all lmao at the result. At least barbarian left without trying to get a last word
Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.
Am I allowed to engage here according to our rules? Mods, remove it if not, but seems like a good faith reading would be that I can here engage, seeing as he responded to me and I'm defending the disengage request?
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
I don't think that is reflected badly on most of the responders directly above though, in all honesty, and I will defend them against accusations of only point-scoring when they are responding in mostly large format effort-posts. The others throwing emotes and such, for sure were just scoring points.
No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
Fair points.
The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".
We have a very strong rule about disengaging where the person replied to AND ALL OTHER HEXBEARS are required to respect it. I'm technically breaking it, but I broke it by telling someone to stop breaking it so I made it a grey zone.
Sure, gish-hallop adjacent is fair. But I would maintain a distinction between gish-galloping to avoid conversation and focusing on the point which illustrates the underlying philosophical problem best. If we don't do that, the posts just get longer and longer and longer. Focusing on the aspect most illustrative can then be better for conversation. It does feel annoying though, when that philosophy isn't fully outlined through the comments. It's clear to those that agree with the other poster (I get what he's doing and what positions are being shown) but to anyone not in the "in-group" it loses that and feels like picking and choosing the arguments easiest to respond to. Hexbears posting for each other can do it, those posting to convince should do better
But you don't have to continue that style and can just call a disengage, which was a good move I think. I would encourage you to try to understand what I've said here though for understanding what the posters were saying. I do agree with them more than you after all.
I don’t know if he’s a nazi, or just a nazi lover, but the head of Ukraine's military, Zaluzhny, has a bust of Stepan Bandura in his office
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.
sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression
This precedent had already been established before the SMO, compare NATO treatment of Libya with its approach to Korea.
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
This already had precedent when the US invaded Iraq amidst near global condemnation and more or less took Iraq's entire gold reserve like some marauding army sacking an ancient city.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
This also had precedent when NATO invaded Libya, which then prompted the DPRK to nuke up. That's reality. You're a lot more safe from invasions if you have nukes.
In general, your points only make sense if you're focusing exclusively on Europe and ignore the rest of the world.
I agree with your points, but I am far more afraid of what the US gains from winning than what the russians do
Maybe Redditors need to have this explained in meme terms to understand.
You, as a liberal, are like Lord Farquaad from Shrek. While you send Ukrainians to die for capital F Freedom (also known as Privatization and Profteering by those pesky RuZZian disinformation bots) you sit back here at your brunch spot saying “Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
Obviously that "Ukranian" is actually a sLaViC oRc RuSsIaN bot!!!!!!!!
The wine cave warriors want tales of victory and slaughter of the orcs, and because they're in the wine cave, they can clink their glasses and imagine whatever they want.
🍷 🍷
noooo you can't use context, that's not fair!!!!
