The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.
Alexander Khodakovsky made the candid concession yesterday on his Telegram channel after Russian forces, including his own troops, were devastatingly defeated by Ukrainian marines earlier this week at Urozhaine in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk regional border area.
“Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday.
“When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities,” he said.
RT was banned first day of the war due to links to the kremlin and propaganda. Wouldn't want people influenced by propaganda, of course! This is the west! We're free thinkers! Now let me see how the war is going in the non-biased Kyiv Post.
Why do posters from Hexbear defend Russia so much? They're not communist. If anything, they're right wing.
Putin has a government allied with Russian business oligarchs and the support of the Russian Orthodox Church. He promotes the military as heroes. He cultivates a cult of personality. He personally controls billions of dollars. That's textbook Fascism.
I swear someone could claim like "Russia is controlled by an army of demons" and if someone from Hexbear was like "actually that is not true you should stick to the realm of fact in your criticisms of Russia" posters you'd still get like "WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING RUSSIA? DONT YOU KNOW RUSSIA ISNT COMMUNIST".
If it was only that it wouldn't be an issue, but many comments here are pushing Putin's propaganda by trying to legitimate manipulated referendums and cherry-picking colateral damages of Ukrainian self-defense or Ukrainian extremists to try to inverse the burden of guilt. I don't know if they actually support Putin or if they are just blinded by their hate of the West, but the end result is that they do help carry Putin's propaganda and its fascist oligarc dictatorship.
Nowhere do I voice support for Russia. It's that any nuance with regard to the Ukraine conflict is seen as 'defending russia', which you've just proven, again.
Edit: nvm, you're that asshole that used the Sartre quote about anti-semitism to justify your anti-communism. You don't want to learn. Almost as if you're a bot
Pointing out blatant untruths, being anti-war and wanting accurate reporting rather that copium meant to inspire more people to thrown themselves to a pointless death is checks notes russian propaganda?
You would've supported the invasion of IraqSo if you're anti-war, why do you support Russia who started the war and has shown they are adamantly pro-war?
We believe the war was started by a quagmire of situations going back as far as 1991, including things like the 2014 NATO-backed coup of Ukraine and the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia. This war wasn't some random unprovoked territory grab dictated by Putin, it's the resolution of western interference in the region for decades. Ukraine had been shelling Donbas and Luhansk for years. NATO brought this war upon themselves, basically. Instigating and prodding at the situation for years.
Also, Russia and Ukraine, near the start of the war, floated the possibility of a ceasefire and NATO pressured them out of it. The USA saw the possibility of a proxy war and started drooling.
We don't support Russia so much as we see them as one unfortunate reality fighting another unfortunate reality. The war's true culprit is capitalism, and as a leftist the only conclusion you should reach is wars like this are senseless and they should immediately stop. And the only way I see this war to stop is if Ukraine immediately surrenders and loses territory, otherwise we'd just be back in 2014 all over again and the situation would repeat. I can vaguely see how that could be construed as pro-Russia, but it's more that I believe diplomacy with Russia is strained, Russia is volatile, and nothing is gained from open warfare with them. Everyone needs to stop fighting, whatever that takes, because the only winners in wars like this are wealthy capitalists, the rest of us lose.
I'm sorry no. Every time someone tries to say "oh well Russia was just pressured by NATO" that's all they leave it at.
How?
No really, explain. Explain how the only option for Russia was to invade their neighboring country and steal land. What negative effects would Russia be feeling right now if they hadn't invaded Ukraine?
"Well NATO was pushing up against their borders"
So fucking what?! Just because your country is so shitty that your neighbors choose to ally with someone else is not an excuse to invade them!
Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why did America freak out that Cuba was going to get missiles from the Soviet Union? What did the Soviet Union choose to do to stop the crisis? Could it be that it is entirely normal for a nation to not want an adversary’s missiles on their border? Has there been multiple examples of conflicts stemming from this issue all over the globe? Have you ever asked yourself a question about how conflicts start, and if other nations have ever behaved similarly?
Russia has no excuse and neither does NATO. The best case scenario is both countries lay down their arms and have socialists take power. Unfortunately we don't live in that kind of situation, so the only thing I can advocate is both NATO and Russia cease fighting. Ukraine shouldn't ally with NATO because NATO shouldn't exist.
What negative effects would Russia be feeling? I don't know, personally I thought Russia entering the war was a bad call and a strategic mistake. I can see the reason why it happened while still saying it's an open act of aggression. Russia probably could have negotiated with Ukraine about Donbas/Luhansk through better oil deals or something, no idea. Possibly could have tried straight up purchasing the land that Russian separatists occupied?
But Russia probably had reason to distrust diplomacy with Ukraine ever since 2014. For context, I believe that 2014 happened specifically because Ukraine's previous government was becoming too close to Russia and it made NATO nervous. I could easily ask, what negative effects would Ukraine be feeling if they hadn't had a western backed coup? Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych floated membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, which set off protests that were capitalized upon by western nations. Would it had been so negative had Ukraine entered a formal economic alliance with some former Soviet states? Who knows now.
The new president, Porochenko, was much harsher on Russian separatists in the east than his predecessors, which started the Donbas war in earnest. That's the moment above any I can point to that started all of this. Maybe if Yanumovych had remained president there could have been a more peaceful solution to Donbas. Who knows now
Yeah but this is all speculation and we live in reality. The reality is the war should cease immediately, for the benefit of people in Ukraine, Russia, and all refugees from the region. Only way I see that realistically happening is if NATO disengages and Ukraine loses territory.
Maybe once fighting finishes something new and better can get negotiated, but I'm not holding my breath that neoliberal countries like this know how to resolve long standing conflicts.
Ukraine shouldn’t ally with NATO because NATO shouldn’t exist.
Maidan wasn't about NATO. Support for NATO membership of Ukraine only sky-rocketed once Russia invaded (after 2014, that is), and by now is overwhelming.
Maidan was about EU membership. Should the EU also not exist in your mind? And yes btw the EU is also a defensive alliance (it's a gazillion of things). Russia's invasion wouldn't have happened had Ukraine been a member. Hence why Russia's stooge Yanukovich was ordered to stop EU accession: Because then Russia wouldn't be able to invade, any more. Ukraine would be as safe as the Baltics and Finland have been all this time.
Oh and btw after the 2004 NATO enlargement (including the Baltics) Putin said that he saw no threat to Russia from that, and also that every country was free to choose their alliance.
Oh and btw after the 2004 NATO enlargement (including the Baltics) Putin said that he saw no threat to Russia from that, and also that every country was free to choose their alliance.
As NATO Finally Arrives on Its Border, Russia Grumbles
Russia's lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on Wednesday denouncing NATO's expansion generally and the deployment of the F-16's specifically.
Echoing warnings in Russia's new military doctrine set forth last fall, the resolution called on President Vladimir V. Putin to reconsider Russia's international agreements with NATO and its own defense strategies, including its nuclear posture.
Ah fuck can't find the right snippet right now (it was a press conference with Schroeder) but have Putin saying the exact same thing about Ukraine, not the Baltics.
And the Duma says a lot of things, but it certainly doesn't dumat', not in this Russia.
I don't put a lot of stock in some YouTuber I've never heard of stiching together snippets of a lengthy diplomatic remark. That's a surefire way to lose context in an environment where there is tons of hedging and caveats as a matter of course.
But taking it at face value for the sake of argument: he said Russia's stance on NATO expansion hasn't changed.
Putin is saying in the snipped exactly what the subtitles say. My Russian is rusty and never was particularly good but it's still good enough to tell.
Also he's not any random youtuber. NFKRZ is Russian, and currently in Georgian exile (the other option would've been to get forced to fight in Ukraine). Probably the best (not excessively analytical like Vlad Vexler) source on Russia you can get in the west if you don't speak Russian.
I trust the translation, I don't trust that there is no important context lost (again, diplomatic speak is filled with hedging and caveats).
But taking it at face value for the sake of argument: he said Russia's stance on NATO expansion hasn't changed.
I've come to realize I gotta preface a lot of what I say on other instances like this: Russia is an imperialist country and I'd laugh if Putin got forcibly removed from power. I'm a communist.
No, the EU should not exist either. No neoliberal institution should exist, including things like the IMF, World Bank, USMCA, NATO, the EU. Should all become memories. Yeah except that's not the world we've got quite yet.
I can't really talk much about what should happen. Money, bosses, landlords, and banks shouldn't exist either, but too bad, right? And yeah we can say all day what would have happened had Ukraine become an EU member nearly a decade ago, but it didn't happen and now we're stuck in this situation. It's all alternate history now. Best case scenario I see right at this moment is a ceasefire even if that means Ukraine loses territory.
The EU isn't any more neolib than its member states, in fact, often much less so. It raised worker's rights and living standards pretty much everywhere, it's actually doing shit against anticompetitive behaviour because Berlaymont isn't nearly as caught up in national industry entanglements as, well, the national governments.
Is it without fail? No, no government is. But it's kinda telling that the forces behind Brexit wanted the UK out so that they could continue to park their assets in tax havens, regress on worker's rights, well, things nobs do.
All in all what you're seeing from the EU, overall, is European SocDem pan-continental compromise stuff. I can definitely fucking imagine worse, especially considering our history of being at each other's throat all the time.
I wonder how American would act if Chinese leaders showed up at protests for Black Lives Matters protests, or Russian leaders showed up for Jan 6th protests?
Victoria Nuland showed up to the protests, and she has multiple emails that basically call it a coup.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp
Also 2 weeks later was the Maidan Sniper incident that has overwhelmingly evidence of a false flag operated by the Ukrainian far right.
I know it’s hard to see that the world isnt Disney level “good vs evil”. It’s actually a little more complicated
I wonder how American would act if Chinese leaders showed up at protests for Black Lives Matters protests, or Russian leaders showed up for Jan 6th protests?
Well Russia did stoke a ton of that culture war bullshit in the US. On both and all sides, of course, they don't care who comes out on top all they want is the US being dysfunctional (well, more dysfunctional than usual). The more controversy the better.
What makes you think they didn't do the same in Ukraine? Just that unlike Yanks, Ukrainians actually understand how Russians operate.
Victoria Nuland showed up to the protests, and she has multiple emails that basically call it a coup.
Foreign diplomat is abroad doing diplomacy. Curious. Coincidence? I think not.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp
Coup? Where? All I see is American arrogance. Americans also still believe that they started Libya and that it had something to do with Hillary.
Also 2 weeks later was the Maidan Sniper incident that has overwhelmingly evidence of a false flag operated by the Ukrainian far right.
You mean Berkut gave Right Sector rifles, then Right Sector shot protestors (including their own people), then Right Sector gave those rifles back to Berkut so the bullets in demonstrators could be matched to Berkut rifles? Overwhelming evidence like that?
Hey but at least you didn't claim Azov was involved who didn't even exist yet.
I know it’s hard to see that the world isnt Disney level “good vs evil”. It’s actually a little more complicated
Indeed.
Victoria Nuland was not a diplomat. She ran the Bureau of Eurasian Affairs in an office based out of Washington DC. She deliberately flew to and took part in demonstrations against a democratically elected government. Again if Chinese or Russian officials did the same during Black Lives Matter 2020 or Jan 6th 2021 I think it would be negatively recieved. I understand you need to pretend that’s not true so you don’t have to admit to being wrong.
Added to that, the person Victoria Nuland picked to be prime minister in the phone call about the the 3 named opposition leaders became prime minister that very same month in an UNELECTED designation by an alliance of far right parties like Svoboda. Svoboda was specifically tied to the shootings in the square on February 20th. 7 days later they were helping choose the US picked prime minister. This wasn’t some magical event of peace, it was clearly deeply effected by US interests and has led to a decade of violence in the country. I’m sorry to hear you enjoy people dying for self righteousness, but here at hexbear we just want senseless violence to end.
I read "Bureau" and thought it was a state institution, and she diplomatic corps. I have no idea who she actually is.
And, no, politicians taking part in demonstrations isn't exactly unheard of in Europe. Also abroad. I mean for one you have to go to Belgium to protest the EU so there's that.
She saying "yeah he should be prime minister" also doesn't mean that she dictated that he should become one... a couple of years back I said that Biden should become President of the US. Does that mean that I putsched the US? Nah, it simply means that I think he's a (vastly) better idea than Trump.
And in any case none of that matters as there were elections quickly after that. The interim government was in power for only a short while, and btw right-wing parties lost heavily in those elections, and elections since. Any iffiness that may or may not have existed during and directly after Maidan was cured afterwards, as befits a democracy, by elections.
I just don’t even know what to say anymore. You are an Internet poster, you are not running the US state department for Eurasian affairs. Saying what your opinions are is not the same as a Bureau Chief at the state department.
Added to that, Nuland goes out of her way to dismiss the EUs interests in those leaked phone calls. The US doesn’t want what’s best for Ukraine, or the EU. They are funding this war out of self interest. If you can’t see that I got nothing left to say.
The US isn't funding this war Europe is. The US is sending military surplus that should largely be assigned negative monetary value because if Ukraine did not take it the US would have to pay to decommission it.
Gods the fucking US exceptionalism wafting through all that supposedly leftist talk. "Nothing ever happens without the CIA being behind it". Guess what, beyond the brink of your burger are people making their own decisions.
And speaking as a EU citizen: Please stop worrying about us. No the US is not some imperial overlord telling us what to do. Stop the pretence.
Do you enjoy being wrong constantly?
Also I bet you can’t wait to be supplied solely by US energy companies the next century. You will really see just how wonderful of a place we are.
Show
Financial vs. military, exactly what I said.
Also no we're not buying US gas. We don't import much LNG in the first place but mostly from Norway and the LNG we import is mostly Quatar. We still consider the US's talk about NordStream to have been nothing but commercial self-interest how naive do you think us to be.
Down the line we're going to import ammonia from Canada and Namibia, completely replacing natural gas.
Bruv if you could read you'd see the numerous comments saying we don't support Russia.
"here look at this"
Show
Show
Show
Show
"two days later russia started the war ! Can you belive it , i consume imperial core media ! "
I notice none of those are located in the area labeled Russian Federation.
You may notice that they form concentrated barrages along lines of advance, such as one might make if one were about to launch a maneuvering assault, upon two territories recognized just earlier that week as sovereign states by Russia, and with which it signed defensive pacts.
Are you suggesting there was even the remotest possibility that Ukraine was going to invade Russia? Cuz I've heard some dumbass takes, but my God.
No! But actually, yes! Here is a high-ranking Azov fascist talking about various things (how the west supports them because they enjoy fighting and killing, how the Maidan would have been a "gay pride parade" if not for a very active fascist element) but most importantly what would happen if "Russia split into five or so Russias". This has been the US State Department's goal since 1993, to divide up Russia into a group of powerless fractional states and enslave them through austerity and debt peonage, so they can exploit their natural resources and labor cheaply - EXACTLY as they did to the Balkans, directly across from Russia.
The threat of the fascist Kiev regime is that it is attacking, subjugating and ethnically cleansing the Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens of the Donbass, who formed militias and fought back against their extermination for eight years. If the AFU had launched a huge invasion and pushed deep into the region, it would be too late for Russia to reverse the operational momentum - ESPECIALLY if, as was continuously threatened, Ukraine joined NATO or their invasion (overtly) included NATO personnel, at which point Russian intervention would start a nuclear war - and they would be left with a group of victorious, energized, viciously anti-Russian fascists on their doorstep. Would those fascists diligently stay on their side of the border? No, of course not. As Andriy Biletsky, founder of the Azov battalion puts it, it is their "crusade to lead the Aryan peoples of the world against the Jewish-led untermenschen". Russia would be subject to continuous destablization by Nazis crossing the border, with the ultimate goal of bringing down the Russian state.
Ukraine, or crucially rather the US State Department puppetting Ukraine, vigorously waved a red flag in front of Russia's nose for eight years, getting closer and closer until finally Russia was forced to invade or face a direct threat to its existence. And how gradually they invaded! It took about a week for the Duma to vote on recognizing the DPR and LPR as sovereign states, and then vote on signing a defensive pact with them, and then finally start moving soldiers into position.
Here are some interesting images
Russian early warning RADAR coverage. Notice the gap RIIIIIIGHT there in eastern Ukraine.
Show
What does Vladimir Putin think about this?
Show
The US couldn't even accept nuclear missiles hundreds of miles from its coast in Cuba (a situation IT PROVOKED by moving missiles into Turkey) so why should Russia accept them along its very border?
And in case you're wondering about the depths of Nazi fanaticism that have been painstakingly and expensively cultivated in Ukraine with the help of the US
Show
Show
Show
You will forget again by tomorrow. It's a very human coping mechanism. Then some meany will remind us again. The only reason I'm not so surprised is because I wake up every day with a riddle of tattoos covering my body.
You don't have to support Russia to question the validity of news sources...
Everything you say about Russia is true, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a proxy war where US is trying to weaken Russia. You can just be against a senseless war that's killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying lives of millions more. Anybody who is even minimally engaging with reality can see that this war will only end one way. What the west is doing is prolonging it without changing the outcome. People of Ukraine are being cynically thrown into a meat grinder so that US can score a win in a geopolitical chess game with Russia.
For Ukrainians it's not the case they're being forced or deceived into fighting, it is a war of national survival! It is a war against an aggressor seeking to at the very least oppress Ukrainian national identity if not destroy it entirely as a political and social force.
Russia is not interested in conquering Ukraine. They're interested in goals like keeping Ukraine out of NATO, maintaining access to the Black Sea, and not having ethnic Russians who don't wish to be a part of Ukraine killed on their borders.
What would you call the annexed regions if not conquered? “Liberated”? Get a grip
I would call them annexed. The people in them do not want to remain part of Ukraine, they're fine with being part of Russia, and that's the touchstone here.
Russia is not interested in conquering the whole of Ukraine, because most of the people in the western part do want to remain Ukrainian, not Russian.
I think a firm majority of people in the annexed regions want to leave Ukraine and are at least fine with joining Russia.
My understanding is that while Russia annexed Kherson, they did not annex Kharkhiv.
I'm very confident the parts of Ukraine that have been trying to leave since 2014 mostly want to leave. I know ethnic Russians and Russian speakers are most heavily concentrated in the east, not just in the pre-war separatist regions but surrounding them, too. I'm sure war breaking out caused a lot of people who were on the fence to pick a side, and I can imagine someone who speaks Russian at home but wasn't radical enough to be part of a pre-war separatist movement throwing in with the much stronger country, that speaks their language, that doesn't have troops running around with neo-Nazi patches and flags.
all data I have seen (I can dig some up if you'd like-do not have it to hand) indicates strong support for the Ukrainian govt against the invasion
What I've seen is breakdowns of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, which are predominantly in the east. I've also seen pre-war election results that show these eastern regions disagree with western Ukraine on national politics.
The reality is that Ukraine lost its sovereignty when the legitimate and democratically elected government was overthrown in a coup. That's when the war started between the regime in western Ukraine backed by the west and the east. Western media actually reported on this as well
- CNN coverage of Donbas in 2014 https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
- HRW report https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
- Donbas documentary 2016 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
I agree that at this point Ukraine is basically fucked. There was a possibility to make a deal back in March last year, but US and UK decided to sabotage it. Now, Russia will likely go all the way and there's not going to be an Ukraine left when this war ends.
Ahh, the rare sane hexbear user I still have hopes for you lot you're definitely not as bad as lemmygrad.
However, let me add something:
It is impossible to conceive of peace until there is a mutually hurting stalemate between the two sides in which neither believe they can win
You leave out the scenario of Russians getting kicked out of the country. Which is going to lead to Putin being sent to his Dacha, and if not and he somehow clings on Ukraine having all its territory opens NATO membership which means that the Russian general staff is going to shit bricks and rather putsch than attack.
What do you think happens if Zelensky signs a peace deal that gives up land? He, a Russian-speaking Jew who used to be on Russian TV and regularly went to the country. He would be deemed a Russian traitorous Jew and would be overthrown and possibly killed by the nationalist and far-right elements within the Ukrainian Army
He a) wouldn't do that and b) since when is Ukraine antisemitic you're confusing it with... pretty much all other countries in that area and c) you don't need to invoke far-right fucks (who are a tiny minority btw) the rest of the country would, well, send him to a Dacha.
And ever if: At that point we'd be in the situation many predicted in the first days of the invasion: Fall of the government, but Ukrainians then fighting a partisan war. And Ukraine right now is just in way too good a position to switch to that.
All in all, the way forward to quick peace is clear: Help Ukraine win this thing. It's both the best option from a direct humanitarian POV by cutting the war short, as well as the best option for wider humanity and the future: Not allowing states intending to conquer to get away with such behaviour. Discouraging wars of aggression is important by itself and one of the reasons why Ukrainians fight so hard, they see the universalism in their own national struggle it just all aligns so well.
“If we make sure every last Ukrainian dies, they will finally have peace”
- ^This guy^
you are welcome. Since you are asking for more people to die than less people to die, and you say it’s for peace. I’ve decided simplifying your long ass post for everyone.
I'm asking for less people to die:
It’s both the best option from a direct humanitarian POV by cutting the war short,
Because, you see, less people tend to die in a short war than in a long war.
Hence why I'm questioning your reading comprehension.
A short war with more intensive fighting. That's just throwing more people into the meat grinder.
Long-range systems can, *drumroll*, disable things from a distance. Right now Ukraine needs to get quite up and close and personal to overcome those lines. One of them incurs more casualties.
Indeed have you ever tried to stop a bulldozer you're not sitting in without risking spraining an ankle?
Your metaphor of stopping a bulldozer by throwing people at it does not convey the point you think it does
The best weaponry available to Ukraine was shattered against the Russian frontline-they can barely even take a few villages,
Ukraine send like two and a half Leos out to see if a frontal assault would work, and it didn't, so they didn't do it again. The vast majority of western systems are still intact and in any case: If things like MBTs and APVs don't get destroyed you're not using them. Things get shot at in wars and it's no secret that a direct artillery hit will kill any tank.
Meanwhile, though, Ukraine is inflicting heavy attrition on Russian artillery, as well as choppers. Don't let the lines on maps confuse you there's a lot happening that isn't visible there.
what I am saying is that the far-right has disproportionate strength in the Ukrainian army
That would mean that all those people who joined since 2014, 2022 are far-right? Which would mean that the whole of Ukraine is far-right. Which makes no sense when you look at the election results with Svoboda having one seat in the Rada.
then in 2022 because it was the best organised forces in the areas seeing the most intense fighting.
Ukraine built its army from 2014, recruiting ordinary people, training them according to NATO doctrine (giving status and independence to NCOs, mission command, such stuff), with NATO help, we sent like a gazillion of instructors. Many many Nazis left Azov after they were integrated into the National Guard, and the whole thing was actively depoliticised.
Are there still Nazis in Azov? Almost certainly. But the days of them dominating and openly running around with SS runes on their helmets are definitely over. Just as a side note btw Azov is and always was Russian-speaking, Ukrainian nationalism gets complicated.
I do not see how Ukraine can win this-even with western weaponry they have failed in their counteroffensive.
No. Ukrainian generals have been very clear about this from the beginning: The offensive is going to drag on for a very long time due to the lack of materiel to do anything big. Conditions have improved somewhat with Stormshadow and Taurus is bound to come soon but Ukraine has no weapons with which it could just obliterate Russian artillery en masse which would then allow them to bring in slow and vulnerable materiel to clear minefields etc. to enable them to break through the line with heavy armour. They, as already said, have to slowly grind down Russian artillery where they can.
The other way would be actual air superiority. Dunno if those F16s will suffice to switch to full NATO strategy but it's certainly going to give the Russian side quite some trouble.
Speaking of NATO strategy that's probably the reason this impression exists: Yeah if Ukraine had a fully equipped NATO army they'd disable the whole Russian rear from the air, then parachute in armour to attack the Russian lines from the rear and the whole thing would be over in no time. The kind of not war but beating you saw on TV so many times. Like Operation Desert Storm. But Ukraine doesn't have a fully equipped NATO army, it's a Soviet-style army half-way switching to NATO doctrine drip-fed some NATO surplus.
Oh another tidbit: Russia mobilised all its reserves to the front, quite some while ago. Ukraine didn't they're rotating troops in and out. Which is why you see renewed conscription drives in Russia, which then poses the question on what kind of equipment they're supposed to be equipped with, not to speak of the additional instability doing that causes.
Because I truly believe that war is horrible the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in this war is a human tragedy, working people all over the world have to deal with the fallout of this war with rising energy costs and higher foodprices which certainly also caused the deaths of people, meanwhile this war is used in many western countries to push extreme austerity which will lessen the quality of life at best.
This war and all wars are a human tragedy, and at the start of it I certainly wasn't in Russias corner and I'm still not but I have lost all sympathy for Ukraine and the West because not only have there been many off ramps for Ukraine to end this conflict but western politicians have contributed to this misery. They've contributed to the deaths of so many lives. People like Boris Johnson that sabotaged the peace talks, Biden that keeps on sending more and more weapon over there so more and more people can die. I've since stopped looking at how much money they've given but around spring it was 100bn USD which would've been enough to combat world hunger for 3 years. Ukranian officials like yes Zelensky who is a clown that personally doesn't suffer from this and uses it to push his own persona and does a cool photoshoot in his sick operator outfit.
Ukraine has not approached the negotiating table in any serious manner because they insist on demanding everything back including Crimea, which just won't happen especially not in this position, so the ukranian leadership is happy to get some money from the west so they order people like you and me to walk into artillery fire or into landmines not for any reason because there haven't been any real gains but just because that's how the money is flowing in.
Ukraine totally could negotiate a peace it would be incredibly easy because Putin seems eager to want to negotiate but what Ukraine wants isn't a restoration of the border situation before the war they want Crimea as well, they are not serious about peace and everyone knows it, Ukraine will never surrender and so the only thing that can stop this senseless war is when the endless amount of money flowing into Ukraine stops or when the people of Ukraine have had enough of their bloodthirsty corrupt leadership and overthrow them.
Edit: Also sorry but quite a few people from other instances literally say fascist shit that reminds me of rhetoric that was used during the conflicts in Yugoslavia and we all know how that turned out, calling russian ethnicities in Ukraine 'occupiers' is surely not going to lead to violence towards that group.
because not only have there been many off ramps for Ukraine to end this conflict
How many of those involve not giving in to the aggressor?
Is this one of these "pacifism is when I kick you and you don't defend yourself" bits?
the moral purity of ''not giving in to the aggressor" doesn't make anybody less dead.
It does: It dissuades the aggressor.
Germanic tribes, and this continues over to Ukraine culturally (because Rus), had the battle cry "better dead than slave". A village would fight down to the last woman, elderly, and child. Because even if the aggressor overcame them they'd be left with nothing but their own losses. Thus, they wouldn't even try.
If Russia is allowed to get away with this, Taiwan will be next. A gazillion of small-scale empires in unstable regions all around the world will say "well, seeing that noone cares our time to get away with it".
Millions if not billions of people more will be dead.
I'm sorry but this is definitely shit you only say when you're very far from the action. Would you want your grandpa drafted and sent into a minefield to "dissuade the aggressor"? Grandma and the children too apparently, better dead than governed by another neighboring authoritarian shithole?
I think I'd rather just flee with my family to a country right next door that has a nuclear deterrent and NATO membership. Literally why would "they need to all fight to the death instead" be your first thought? I can't imagine it coming from a position where you think Ukrainians are as human as you are.
People back then couldn't flee like that. You're taking it all well too literally.
And yes I have Ukrainian refugee neighbours. Soldiers knowing their families are safe with friends isn't exactly bad for morale, either.
lol no you don't, you've been lying through this entire thread, I bet even if you had them you wouldn't know about it because when I asked you to go outside and talk to people you ignored it, literally stop being a NEET go outside and talk to people
How, pray tell, would I know my neighbours are Ukrainian when I never talk to people?
Checkmate, projectionist.
How, pray tell,
Checkmate
holy shit my comrade was right on the money, Discord moderator energy levels off the chartsYou are a german NEET go outside, maybe when you spend some time among real life people you can get your priorities straight like instead of arguing with the scary putin-bot tankies online you can figure some way to organize so that the AfD, that's the fascist party in case you forgot, doesn't poll in second place. Unless you yourself aren't a NEET but a fascist and want the AfD to 'Take back Germany' in which case fuck off.
If Russia is allowed to get away with this, Taiwan will be next. A gazillion of small-scale empires in unstable regions all around the world will say "well, seeing that noone cares our time to get away with it". Millions if not billions of people more will be dead.
Holy shit mate, stop watching Marvel movies and get some perspective; this isn't the first time one nation has invaded another. The world didn't end when America invaded Iraq.
The Iraq war was wrong for a multitude of reasons, and many countries (including mine) wanted to do nothing to do with it, but one thing sets it apart very clearly from the current situation:
Iraq wasn't a war of conquest. Russia's war against Ukraine is. The US hasn't waged a war of conquest IIRC since Hawaii, it's always been foreign meddling instead but never out-right imposition of rule and they've gotten less and less bad at how they're doing it over time. I mean compare the Iraqi or Afghani government during occupation with the likes of Batista.
Then, and this (as well as that Marvel reference I couldn't give less of a fuck) makes me think you're American: It's the first war by a major power in Europe since WWII. We thought we had that shit behind us, that Yugoslavia was a regrettable exceptions caused by small-minded autocrats exploiting ethnic tensions for their own benefit. But, nope, actual full-scale war has come back to Europe because unlike the rest of Europe Russia hasn't gotten the memo that imperialism is soooo 18hundreds. As a yank you wouldn't understand.
A war of avoiding national embarrassment and getting re-elected. The equivalent of starting a bar fight because someone picked up the gal you eyed through your whisky glass for two hours.
Okay, so what you're saying is that our genocidal war in Iraq that killed a million people, displaced 30 million more, poisoned their soil and DNA with depleted uranium and created ISIS...You're saying all of that was done for even stupider reasons than the ones you think are driving the Russian Federation now.
Is that supposed to make the US look better, and not monstrous?
Or, more relevant question, why on Earth should the country that lied to start that war be trusted about anything, ever again?
Nobody has been able to give me a compelling answer that doesn't just boil down to "because other countries must be worse, have to be worse, for my worldview to make sense." And I get it, I've been there. I was a bit of an American chauvinist for a while. But the more familiar I became with history, especially in the 20th century, the more it became clear to me that America has no equivalent in the scale of it's evil.
Btw just curious, (and not the smug condescending internet kind of "curious", the real deal): Have you ever checked out Blowback? If you're a podcast person it's fantastic, season one is about the Iraq war and it really goes into depth on the history and context behind the war. Some of the reasons you mentioned, some others. Highly recommend.
America has no equivalent in the scale of it's evil.
I don't know the British Empire has to be pretty close lol
Is that supposed to make the US look better, and not monstrous?
No. Yanks are idiots I said it before and I'm certainly willing to repeat it. The age of enlightenment by and large never reached them.
Have you ever checked out Blowback?
Nope and honestly I'm not particularly interested because I was already arguing with idiots back then that they're making a heap of mistakes, I'm sure there's details in there that I don't know but I'm well-versed in the overall gist of it all from back then.
If you're up for crying and laughing at the same time though I have something for you. The history of the USA ones, the subtitles are quite good.
Iraq wasn't a war of conquest.
Please, for god's sake log off before you strain something.
less and less bad at how they're doing it over time.
This is actually disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. The Americans murdered a million Iraqis, and in the last few years at least 400,000 Yemenis, plus god knows who else and in what numbers.
Ah yes, the US murdering millions of people in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on was just "foreign meddling".
You are fucking disgusting.
It's the first war by a major power in Europe since WWII.
Are you a child, an american, or did you only start paying attention to history in February 2022?
- The Troubles (UK vs occupied Ireland)
- Cyprus War of Independence(UK vs occupied Cyprus)
- Bombing of Yugoslavia (Nato vs Yugoslavia)
- Russo-Georgian War (Russia vs Georgia)
The troubles were not an inter-state conflict.
Cyprus is a vastly complicated situation as Turkish Cypriots were in favour of British rule and Greek Cypriots wanted unification with Greece while it was a dictatorship.
I mentioned Yugoslavia. Do you read comments before replying.
Georgia is basically the same shit as Ukraine just in a bit less worse. While we're at it we can also mention Transnistria: Again, Russia. As said, it's Russia which didn't get the memo.
The troubles were not an inter-state conflict.
Only because the Irish didn't manage to win.
Cyprus is a vastly complicated situation as Turkish Cypriots were in favour of British rule and Greek Cypriots wanted unification with Greece while it was a dictatorship.
Now this definitely was an inter-state conflict, because Cyprus managed to break free from the British empire. And if we excluded complicated situation then we would have to exclude all wars, including the Ukraine war.
I mentioned Yugoslavia. Do you read comments before replying.
You mentioned it and then said it didn't count because of reasons. I'm saying it does count because it was a war and it was in Europe. Although under your criteria this should also be excluded because it wasn't an inter-state conflict. One of the ways that NATO justified its bombing was by saying it wasn't a state but a supranational organization and thus wasn't beholden to the UN charter.
Georgia is basically the same shit as Ukraine just in a bit less worse
It was another situation where a western-backed revanchist government attacks a separatist area and then Russia moves in to stop the shelling.
Transnistria
"The first fatalities in the emerging conflict took place on 2 November 1990, two months after the PMR's 2 September 1990 declaration of independence. Moldovan forces entered Dubăsari in order to separate Transnistria into two halves, but were stopped by the city's inhabitants, who had blocked the bridge over the Dniester, at Lunga. In an attempt to break through the roadblock, Moldovan forces then opened fire.[47] In the course of the confrontation, three Dubăsari locals, Oleg Geletiuk, Vladimir Gotkas and Valerie Mitsuls, were killed by the Moldovan forces and sixteen people wounded.[30]"
According to a Human Rights Center “Memorial” report, local Bender eyewitnesses on 19 June 1992 saw Moldovan troops in armored vehicles deliberately firing at houses, courtyards and cars with heavy machine guns.[39] The next day, Moldovan troops allegedly shot at civilians that were hiding in houses, trying to escape the city, or helping wounded PMR guardsmen. Other local eyewitnesses testified that in the same day, unarmed men that gathered in the Bender downtown square in request of the PMR Executive Committee, were fired at from machine guns.[39] HRC observers were told by doctors in Bender that as a result of heavy fire from Moldovan positions between 19 and 20 June, they were unable to attend the wounded.[39] -Wikipedia
Hmm
The economic situation in Moldova was not bright. The Agrarian Democratic Party of Moldova was having, along with the Unity-Edinstvo formation – belonging to the people with nostalgia for the former Soviet Union, a comfortable majority; yet, deep concepts and programmes on reforms and the country’s development were absent.
Nevertheless, the western countries were helping Moldova make progress on the way of liberalization of the political and economic spheres. In particular, a substantial assistance was coming on behalf of the USA. The Americans repeatedly declared their unconditional support for Moldova’s territorial integrity, acting to this end in diverse international institutions. And the economic agenda of the Moldovan-American relations was rich at that time. In 1993, 35 Moldovan-U.S. enterprises were working and the trade between the two countries was in a continuous growth. In 1992, this commerce stood at 11.5 million dollars, in 1993 - 15.1 million dollars and in 1994 – 22.4 million dollars. Moldova was benefitting from full support in the relations with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. -https://news.gov.md/en/news/2021/01/01/21000333
Hmm. It's weird how in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine a western-backed revanchist government started attacking civilians in a separatist region all of a sudden. And how all three countries had "market liberalizations" against the will of their people. I guess it's just one of those coincidences that seem to happen whenever the US has an interest in a place.
Germanic tribes, and this continues over to Ukraine culturally (because Rus), had the battle cry "better dead than slave". A village would fight down to the last woman, elderly, and child.
So when are you going to Ukraine to sign up for the frontline?
You're definitely gonna do that right?
I'll have to inform you that I'm a conscious objector (spent my time in catastrophe relief) and by now too old.
But yes there's plenty of German reservists in Ukraine. Also what does that have to do with anything I said, I was glossing Ukrainian sentiment. Did you merely wanted to be right on the internet (in your own mind).
How is this an excuse? The Germanic tribes of Ukraine used to fight down to the last elderly person I hear.
Dude I'm two countries away. If Russia gets through Poland and half of Germany, sure, I'll be in the trenches. Probably wouldn't do much good but if I can't be of more use somewhere else, that's where I'll be.
Well that's better! Someone so interested in tales of Germanic valor should be ready for another Volkssturm. What I don't get is why you wouldn't sacrifice yourself in Ukraine, what with the blood relation and all. Maybe Ukrainians aren't quite as Germanic in your mind after all?
Are you Völkisch or something? I'm getting distinct Nazi vibes from your line of thinking.
I'm mocking you. You're the one that drew a line from Germanic tribes and their heroic culture to modern-day Ukraine. These are some pretty völkische theories you got there.
Ukraine has lost. They are not getting their separatist regions back.
Their choices are to keep fighting, which will not change this outcome, or negotiate an end to the war so they can stop dying and start rebuilding. Their negotiating position will only weaken as the war continues absent some one-in-a-million stroke of luck.
This isn't "I kick you and you don't defend yourself." It's "I kick you, you defend yourself, lose, and choose to either walk away or keep getting beaten up." And that's not even digging into the actual causes of the war, which are nowhere near as clear cut as Russia one day waking up and deciding to attack out of the blue.
Ukraine has lost. They are not getting their separatist regions back.
[citation needed].
In any case Ukrainians disagree with you and keep on fighting. Heck even if Russia occupied all of Ukraine they'd keep on fighting. It's not in your hands whether they fight or not, and their motive is just, so why not help them? Because you're a defeatist? Come on.
In any case Ukrainians disagree with you and keep on fighting
Yeah, that's why they've been kidnapping people to the front lines, because the Ukranian people want to fight so much. That's why they conscripted prison inmates and forbid any man undder 60 from leaving when the war broke out, right. Because of all that popular will to fight.
There's been plenty of court cases and firings over improperly handled conscriptions. Prison inmates IIRC weren't conscripted but given a choice. Plenty of Ukrainians -- also men -- returned from other European countries to fight, left countries where they had a free welfare ride and working permits. Plenty of women fight in the army. It surely must be terrible over there /s.
Meanwhile Russia is force-conscripting pretty much any man they can get their hands on and sending them, without equipment, into meat grinders. Have a look at Storm Z units.
improperly handled conscriptions.
Technically they fired every conscription officer in the country for bribery so I'm not sure that really supports your case.
"They want to keep doing something you think is futile and causing senseless deaths, so why not help them?"
You know what would be even more senseless than dying in a trench? Dying in an FSB torture cellar while your family gets raped.
Stuff you don't want to hear so didn't hear, apparently: Russian torture cellars. Other things you might not want to hear include Russians castrating POWs.
I said the war is lost and Ukraine should negotiate. You said:
It's not in your hands whether they fight or not, and their motive is just, so why not help them?
I pointed out how ridiculous it is to say "why not help them" is to someone who just said they believed the war was lost. Rather than continue this conversation, you went off on a tangent. Brilliant.
It's not a tangent. Even if Ukraine lost (and it didn't, and you made no actual argument on why I should believe so) with the kind of atrocities Russia is committing in occupied territories tons of people would, and, well, do, fight against the occupiers.
you made no actual argument on why I should believe so
Would anything convince you?
And yes, bringing up allegations of war crimes is a total non sequitur in a discussion about whether the war itself is winnable for Ukraine. No war crime is excusable, but every side of every war commits them.
- The front has not moved in most of a year, which includes the recent failed counteroffensive.
- Russia views this as an existential threat. NATO will pay the bills but not indefinitely. Ukraine at some point will tire of a train of body bags with nothing to show for them.
- Russia has much shorter supply lines than NATO.
- NATO pulled out its economic Trump card at the beginning of the conflict and yet here we are.
The front has not moved in most of a year, which includes the recent failed counteroffensive.
That's not even close to a military analysis. What about artillery attrition? Logistics in the rear? What's the average time between Russians setting up an ammo depot and it getting blown to bits? Conscription getting riskier and riskier for Putin?
How many reserves have the sides committed to the front? Hint: Russia committed everything quite some time ago while Ukraine didn't and is rotating troops so they can get some well-deserved R&R.
Russia views this as an existential threat. NATO will pay the bills but not indefinitely. Ukraine at some point will tire of a train of body bags with nothing to show for them.
Putin does, certainly when it comes to regime stability. Russia? I very much doubt it because there's also sane Russian. Europe will continue support indefinitely don't confuse us for fickle yanks and you're severely underestimating the morale boost incurred by fighting a defensive war. For Ukraine, this indeed is an existential war. Read Clausewitz.
Russia has much shorter supply lines than NATO.
No. Much of Russia's production and stocks are in the east. Also that's like such a non-issue.
NATO pulled out its economic Trump card at the beginning of the conflict and yet here we are.
...at a state where Russia, Russia, is importing metals from China. Metals. Russia. Do I need to need to use more italics. I don't have any insight on the details but it's well-known that Russia is lacking workers because tons are either a) dead, b) on the front, or c) in hiding to not end up a) or b), and that seems to be so bad that it affects mining and refining.
Now China might be happy propping Russia up, but internally the Z-patriots are going to scream bloody murder incurring debts with China. Long story short: Russia's internal situation is becoming more and more volatile.
What about artillery attrition? Logistics in the rear? What's the average time between Russians setting up an ammo depot and it getting blown to bits? Conscription getting riskier and riskier for Putin? How many reserves have the sides committed to the front?
Do you think you know the answer to any of these questions? I don't see any sources. The bottom line is that Russia has shown the ability to hold its territory for quite some time.
Europe will continue support indefinitely
Lol let's see if Europe's support will last another winter of higher energy prices. The U.S. is the big spender, anyway.
...at a state where Russia, Russia, is importing metals from China
This paragraph is so mind-meltingly stupid I hardly know where to start.
- Countries regularly import metals, metals, from other countries. That's because whether to import is a business decision based on price, not whether you have domestic access to an item.
- It is utterly preposterous to believe Russia is lacking workers. Soviet industrial capacity exploded during WWII, a far larger and more destructive war.
Do you think you know the answer to any of these questions? I don’t see any sources.
You'd know about it if you actually followed the war in military terms.
Lol let’s see if Europe’s support will last another winter of higher energy prices. The U.S. is the big spender, anyway.
Are you European?
Countries regularly import metals, metals, from other countries. That’s because whether to import is a business decision based on price, not whether you have domestic access to an item.
So you're saying that it's cheaper for Russia to import from China than keeping production inside? How is that supposed to work?
It is utterly preposterous to believe Russia is lacking workers. Soviet industrial capacity exploded during WWII, a far larger and more destructive war.
That was in a day and age where people still had children, and it's no wonder it exploded it was pretty much at zero during Tsar times.
Have Russian press reporting about the military shortfall, and that's before the war started, not counting the sky-high incurred losses. Sure, Russians per se still exist but they're increasingly I nearly said grandmas but the better term would be grandma age.
No sources on all those questions, then.
So you're saying that it's cheaper for Russia to import from China than keeping production inside? How is that supposed to work?
Jesus Christ... Russia is a big country. Mines and mills are expensive and undesirable to live by so they don't build them everywhere unless it's necessary. Ore deposits are not spread evenly throughout countries, nor are mills. Unfinished products are not very economical to ship long distances. So Russia could have all the (for example) steel production capacity in the world, but if its capacity is mostly in Western Russia and you have a factory in Eastern Russia right across the border from a Chinese steel mill, it's probably cheaper to import than buy domestically.
That was in a day and age where people still had children, and it's no wonder it exploded it was pretty much at zero during Tsar times.
People have kids today you doofus, and not only running production capacity but building it all while fighting a war is an even greater indication of their labor availability than if they had started with a strong industrial base.
Ukraine has lost. They are not getting their separatist regions back.
[citation needed].
Points at the utter failure of the joke of a counteroffensive to even breach Russia's first line of defense after months of hype about retaking Crimea
In any case Ukrainians disagree with you and keep on fighting.
You mean the ones forced to fight because they were kidnapped off the street and will be shot if they try to leave? Or the fascists that are in charge?
Heck even if Russia occupied all of Ukraine they'd keep on fighting.
Part of the reason why Russia does not want to occupy all of Ukraine.
It's not in your hands whether they fight or not,
Nor yours, but it is in the hands of NATO leadership who have stymied peace negotiations at every opportunity.
and their motive is just
[citation needed]
so why not help them?
Why would we want to help people get forced into a meat grinder?
How slava ukraini you still feeling after 8 months of being wrong and Ukraine eating shit?
lol, reread what you're responding to, comrade. Friendly fire.
Disgusting is cheerleading who knows how many more deaths that if anything will only weaken Ukraine's bargaining position.
Federatin is great I really forgot all the deep, nuanced, informative conversations I used to have on Reddit. I am learning so much here!
I don't know, we really have to look at defederating from some of these hostile communities. That rude user just told me to kill myself, whereas my polite Hexbear comrades would only send me an emoji of pig shit if we had a serious disagreemt.
Minsk I a treaty they've signed that was about greater autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts like them being allowed to speak russian a treaty that was very quickly broken.
Minsk II a treaty that did the same thing which again was broken.
and these are the off ramps before the war during the war you had the peace talks when the russian army was outside of Kiev whose content is dubious because so far only the russians said what it was about
and more importantly every peace talk after that Ukraines position was a restoration of the 2014 borders aka they want Crimea back which sorry is just not reasonable, hell for a lot of those peace talks russia wasn't even invited it was a bunch of countries like Germany, UK and Ukraine but not you know the country currently participating in this war.
This is one of those bits where I say that a country isn't about some piece of land but the people in it which guess what the ukrainian government is feeding into gigantic blender.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT SOME IMAGINARY LINES.
If Cuba decided to 'restore its borders' aka if it attacked the US base on Guantanamo Bay and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of Cubans throwing them against the US army blender I would call for the Cuban people to rise up against its government because it doesn't care about its people and I hope you would too, if Mexico decided to take back California I'd have that same stance. It's called being anti-war, something I'm sure you'll now quote how "actually your stance isn't anti-war my which calls for sending billions of military equipment is actually anti-war"
My guess is that you don't know what war is like or have never interacted with anyone that had to flee a war, you really have two options here you can go outside and talk to any ukrainian woman that fled because of the war, tell them to their face that they are giving in to the aggressor when they say how angry they are at the ukrainian government because they don't know where their husband or their two brothers are. You know what I'll make it easier for you find any person in real life that has had to flee a conflict and how they feel about 'giving in to the aggressor'. Or if you feel you don't need to do that go join up the ukranian army do your part to fight the aggressor I mean it's only war right, you've seen some TikToks with war footage and some phonk music accompaning it, war is absolutely poggers I'm sure you'd have a blast fighting some russian orks.
Minsk I a treaty they’ve signed that was about greater autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts like them being allowed to speak russian a treaty that was very quickly broken.
Minsk II a treaty that did the same thing which again was broken.
...broken by the separatists. Also Russian was never outlawed.
Ukraines position was a restoration of the 2014 borders aka they want Crimea back which sorry is just not reasonable,
It's unreasonable to not give in to a conqueror? It's that "Pacifism is when I kick you and you don't defend yourself" thing, again.
I DON’T CARE ABOUT SOME IMAGINARY LINES.
You may not. The people living in those areas (fled or not) do, though. They do care whether there's rule of law, whether they have a say in how things are run, whether there's a criminal installed at the top of things by the occupying force. After Ukraine got its independence many Tatars returned to Crimea that should tell you something.
Ukrainians, no matter the ethnicity, don't want to be ruled by Moscow. It's as simple as that. Before the war, some still had hopes that good relations with Moscow are possible, but not any more. Do you want to be ruled by Moscow? See neighbours disappear in torture cellars?
damn I was so sure this ukrainian woman I was talking to really wanted the war to end but she must not be a true blooded ukrainian women amiright? Again you are just some edgy person that doesn't get out enough and you channel that into playing up how much of a big powerful person you are by yelling "WAR WAR WAR NO ME WANT BLOOD WAR NOW BOMBS MINES BLOOD SKULLS WAR" it is good to see though that you will not go outside so there's that you don't seem like a pleasant person to be around.
Also this isn't a creative exercise you aren't supposed to just make up lies lol
Everyone wants the war to end. By the way of Russia losing it because Russia being allowed to win means even more war in the future: Peace on the agressor's terms is not peace, and thus cannot be the goal of any pacifist.
If the Kiev coup regime was concerned about aggression, they could have simply not done eight years of ethnic cleansing in the Donbas and ignored a ceasefire🤷♂️
Are there any OSCE election monitor results you want to back up your "coup regieme" claim?
Also, the breakaway Russian puppet states were the ones to break the ceasefires.
Google Operation Aerodynamic, i'm not gonna spoonfeed you information you'll just petulantly spit out to preserve your protofascist worldview.
Must've been a colossal failure, what with Svoboda having exactly one seat in the Rada.
the first 2 , they just involved West Ukraine giving in towards accepting 30 % of your citizens to have Human and Democratic rights as well .. (please read up on Minsk 1 & 2 )
Ah, the old myth about the poor disenfranchised Russian minority. Who, pray tell, might have an interest in propagating such narratives? A neighbouring belligerent empire, perhaps?
Ah, the old myth about the perfidious, untrustworthy minority with dual loyalties who are surely plotting with The Enemy. Who, pray tell, might have an interest in propagating such narratives?
Certainly not the vast, vast, majority of Ukrainians. Even among the Ukrainian far-right that's a tiny minority.
A tiny minority with military and political power who have been attempting genocide in the Donbas for eight years, yes.
Name them. Who are you talking about? Through which party do they act? What battalions do they field? How are they operating independently of the general staff?
Because if you mean Azov the current battalion isn't the old Azov, it's been diluted by ordinary people to the point where it's an ordinary battalion. If you're talking about Right Sector they're under general staff command when it comes to military, and have literally zero political power left in the Rada.
And those genocide claims are also bullshit. Poroshenko lost an election (among other things) over being too heavy-handed, yes, but even then anything that went down was a far cry from genocide. It's not even comparable to Russia's bombing campaign which deliberately targets civilians at their most vulnerable to inflict maximum casualties, apartment complexes in the night and shopping malls during shopping hours kind of shit.
How many of those involve not giving in to the aggressor?
How can it be hammered in to your skull that this is not a story book where good guys win by virtue of their righteousness?
This is geopolitics. An empire wants to conquer an outlying resource rich region it has not been able to bring under it's control. It has provoked a small outlying nation to act as a proxy to weaken it's enemy. Ukraine isn't making decisions. They're just ammunition in someone else's war and the best thing for them would be to mutiny against Kiev and end the slaughter. Status quo antebellum is not on the menu.
We don't. However America is worse. So it is nice to neoliberal infighting. Bonus, America losing is better overall for world peace.
The part complaining about a lack of Russian state-controlled news media?
That's not what he meant and you know it. He's making light of an obvious double standard regarding the standing in which we hold two sources with obvious national biases.
They might not know it. There hasn't been a lot of particularly complex analysis here and they very well might be operating on the level of "bad news bad, good news good".
Honestly, why are we even wasting time here?
Hell, I dunno. This sort of thing got through to me eventually, maybe I'm hoping I can change minds myself.
Because you have the reading comprehension of a grade schooler and are apparently incapable of handling such complexities as "Just because they're winning doesn't mean we support them" and "everybody in this conflict is an asshole except the non-Nazis soldiers being slaughtered so defense contractors can put in new pools in Arlington".
This isn't some law of attraction thing. Admitting that Ukraine is at best stalemated isn't going to cause them to magically lose.
There's a lot of layers to this. Among them the problem that yanks and other westerners with an exceptionalist world outlook have been convinced that only the good guys win, and that to win means to be the good guy no matter how abhorrent they are. So to accept that Russia is winning or, at least, that Ukraine can't win, means accepting that Russia is in fact the good guy. Which is clearly nonsense, but then neither you nor I are making the claim.
Imagine linking kyivpost as if it's a credible source. Might as well link an article from Weekly World News next.
edit: I love how downvotes immediately come in when you point out the obvious, as long as the article says what people want to hear they all of a sudden stop caring about credible sources
What part of this is incorrect?
"Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday."
The Kyiv Post is quoting Alexander Sergeevich Khodakovsky from his telegram channel, the Russian commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion. He was involved in the uprising in Donetsk back in 2014 and continues to this day to be involved in the Ukrainian war.
https://t.me/s/aleksandr_skif?before=2851
In this case, they are quoting a primary source. So irrespective of your opinion of their journalistic integrity, this appears to be factual information.
Here's another source from Reuters that discusses the Ukrainian Marines retaking Urozhaine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-recaptures-urozhaine-donetsk-region-russian-forces-2023-08-16/
This is a typical poisoning the well ad hominem.
In this case, they are quoting a primary source. So irrespective of your opinion of their journalistic integrity, this appears to be factual information.
Let's start with the fact that he's not some top Russian commander, and he's not even part of the actual Russian military. He's one of the commanders of the militias who've been fighting against the regime. the article is clearly misrepresenting his position and authority.
Here’s another source from Reuters that discusses the Ukrainian Marines retaking Urozhaine
Meanwhile, these little villages change sides pretty much every day of the conflict. You can see on the pro Ukrainian map how small this place is and that it's not even close to Russian defensive lines https://liveuamap.com/#
Perhaps you can explain why you think this is a significant event here. Seems like this is a much bigger deal https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/europe/kupyansk-ukraine-evacuation-russia-intl/index.html
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-6-2023
Well according to the Institute for the Study of War, he is the current commander of the Vostok battalion in Donetsk. A lot of people reject the idea that the so-called rebellion in danetsk and luhansk was a grassroots movement, and was instead orchestrated by the Russian GRU and FSB to whittle away at Ukraine.
Therefore, that would lend credence to the idea that Khodakovsky is in fact a Russian commander, despite the fact that he was born in Donetsk. He did however relocate to Russia after 2018 before returning for the war.
--
I am less interested in the details of this particular event, as I am more concerned about the truth. I merely provided alternative sources of information that cross-referenced and corroborated the material in the article as being mostly true.
--
As for a Kupyansk, I'm not at all surprised because as you say, there has been give and take along the border for the entire duration of the war. And since Russia still has its inventory a large amount of artillery, any town is at risk of attack.
ISW is a propaganda outlet run by Vicky Nuland, so if that's where you get your information from that explains a lot about your world view. The fact that a lot of people in the west guzzle propaganda isn't really an argument.
Therefore, you you should stick to actual facts of the situation instead of making stuff up.
If you were concerned about the truth then you wouldn't be pretending that the uprising in Donetsk was somehow orchestrated when there's a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Let's take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
Show
here's how the election in 2004 went:
Show
this is the 2010 election:
Show
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Show
The reality is that the population in these areas is largely ethnic Russian and after US sponsored coup regime started doing things like banning Russian language, these people rebelled against it.
Furthermore, here's what CNN was reporting the regime doing in Donbas back in 2014 https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
Here's an article from the human rights watch https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
And here's a whole documentary of the atrocities these people suffered https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
Pretending this was somehow orchestrated as opposed to directly caused by the oppression of the regime is the height of dishonesty. Which is pretty weird to see coming out from somebody who seeks the truth.
Plenty of western experts have been talking about this for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
As for a Kupyansk, I’m not at all surprised because as you say, there has been give and take along the border for the entire duration of the war. And since Russia still has its inventory a large amount of artillery, any town is at risk of attack.
Except Russia made many kilometres of progress there and Ukraine is now evacuating from the area. That's not give and take, that's Ukrainian position collapsing. Russia isn't evacuating anybody at any single point that Ukraine was trying to break through for the past 10 weeks.
Mearsheimer
A leftie citing a Realist. Then Chomsky, the serial genocide denier larping as an Anarchist you must be American he's a persona non grata in Europe. In a sense also a realist in the sense of "no chess piece country is ever doing anything and everything bad that ever happens is due to the CIA because what the other players are doing is always good".
Now I have my issues with Kraut but watch this.
you are very good at repeating slander ! We are very good in seeing through it ...
tell me why would you miss out on a "A leftie citing a Realist" and a "serial genocide denier larping as an Anarchist" sounds interesting .. also its required from you, Your not a serious Person if and worth the discussion if "listening to the Dissent" is to much to ask for you ...
Imaging in a Court
"the evidence is not relevant because it was filmed by a Japanse camera , and the Japanese are dirty , i will not watch this , Also take me Serious please !"
Because the Soviets -- rightly -- decried geopolitical realism as imperialist apologia. You're citing imperialist apologia. As a so-called leftist.
And Chomsky denying genocides, do I really have to go into that?
Because the Soviets -- rightly -- decried geopolitical realism as imperialist apologia. You're citing imperialist apologia. As a so-called leftist.
what ? maybe actually concern yourself with the TOPIC.. not with the Messanger ? Do you Think i am Vladimir Putin ? That i controll the Russian army ? I explaine to you "Russias Course" of action , I am not Russia , i am a Person explaining to you the Thoughts of Russia , BECAUSE THEY ARE RELEVENT TO THE SITUATION, Russia has a Full Strategic Array , World most advanced Nuclear and Missile Technology and Security council seat and hundreds of Tousends of Soldiers ,you are probably not even valued more then Medicine by your state , Russias Opinion is RELEVANT to the Situation they are way more relevent then your thought s and my thoughts ... The Sowjet union is Dead , she Preached many great thinks we all love and miss her dearly ...
We are the "dirtbag" left , you dont scare or scold us with your purity fetish...
And Chomsky denying genocides, do I really have to go into that
which one ? Uigurs, Palestina or Great Replacementtheory ... ?
what ? maybe actually concern yourself with the TOPIC… not with the Messanger ?
I linked you a video. Watch it. The issue with realism is not who spouts it but the way in which it frames international relations.
which one ? Uigurs, Palestina or Great Replacementtheory … ?
Cambodia, Yugoslavia, I think there were others but those I'm sure of. He later on did accept that the Red Khmer were assholes but still defended his prior judgement ("The CIA is evil so me saying killing fields were a CIA invention was warranted"), to this day so far as I know he's still supporting Milosevic and denying Serbs erected concentration camps, were shelling civilians, suchlike.
Source on the thing about Nuland owning/running/operating the ISW? Not heard it before. Not saying you’re wrong of course, just genuinely want to learn more!
they don't hide it https://www.aalep.eu/institute-study-war-isw
The forces are most definitely not balanced, and this whole idea of a frozen conflict is just the new narrative the west is pushing. You'll see what happens when Russia actually starts doing offensive operations.
Last I checked Russia took Bakhmut, and they managed to use a PMC to bleed Ukrainian army there in the process which delayed the offensive and gave Russia more time to build fortifications. Even US analysts are now admitting that they advised Ukraine against trying to hold it, and blame the losses there and the delays for the current debacle.
I have no idea where you got this idea that Russia didn't take the whole city, you can clearly see the whole city is under Russian control on the pro Ukrainian liveuamap https://liveuamap.com/
Show
Meanwhile, the battle has been grinding for the Ukrainian military while it didn't even engage Russian military proper on the Russian side. It was fought by a private military company. This was easily one of the biggest blunders in the war that Ukraine has made to date.
I mean you can clearly see that the city is controlled by Russia on the map, saying that Ukraine took a couple of blocks in the suburbs is just pure cope. If anything, the fact that Ukraine is still wasting resources there months after losing the city they shouldn't have tried to contest in the first place, further shows how dysfunctional Ukrainian strategy is.
The west hasn't been much better. There was an actual article in WaPo that flat out said that the west knew that Ukraine didn't have enough equipment to do the offensive, but pushed them into it anyways because they thought their motivation and gumption would make up for it:
This is not how you fight a war.
ISW is owned by Kimberly Kagan, not Vicky Nuland. It's in your link. They do appear to be in laws however.
A lot of people reject the idea that the so-called rebellion in danetsk and luhansk was a grassroots movement
Therefore, that would lend credence to the idea that Khodakovsky is in fact a Russian commander
"A lot of people are saying it" lends credence to nothing.
The war timeline link in your source, by the way, will show you the front has not moved appreciably for nearly a year.
Well the information has to come from somewhere, and a war between two sides some of the information has to come from the other side otherwise it's all propaganda.
The trick is to determine what's true or not.
If you're curious, this is the full telegram translation from DeepL:
Can we militarily bring down Ukraine? Right now and in the short term, no. When I reason in myself about our victory in this war - I don't mean that we will crawl forward like them, turning everything into bahmuts on our way. And I don't envision the easy occupation of cities.... We will enter the phase that is most disadvantageous for Ukraine in its "self-styled" state: the phase of neither peace nor war. We could be in this phase if, instead of the SWO, we recognized the territories and officially took them under guardianship. But that would be a completely different turn of history....
In our reality, which has already taken place, it will come to a "truce". We have started certain processes in the economy, caused by the increased load, but in general we have endured and caught the balance. We are balancing - not without that - but we are walking on a tightrope. Remember the crisis of the eighth year, which was called the crisis of the banking system? Back then, just one bank collapsed, setting off the domino principle, and we experienced a lot of bad things in a fairly short period of time. Now there is systematic pressure, but we are warming up, but we are holding on.
It will not be the same with Ukraine. If we don't let the internal situation in Russia to rock, we have a very high survivability with all our ailments. Ukraine is a completely different "physics". Economically and politically, it is a construct that cannot survive on its own. That is why the project of independent Ukraine was not realized and turned into a project of "who to lie under". Unfortunately, the elites oriented to Western money defeated the elites who wanted to milk Russia. Now the West gives mostly what can only bring destruction. When you read about the next aid, what you see is not money that you can saw, but iron that you have to dispose of. You can't make much money from it. Therefore, at the end of the upcoming phase, we will most likely face a global redivision of Ukraine. Translated with DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
Seems as though he's saying basically what most Hexbears are saying: that Ukraine is unstable, and without Western support it will fall. All Russia needs to do is hold out until the West gets bored or pivots to Taiwan, which is easier said than done, admittedly, but is possible.
It's based on the US being in it only half-heartedly. Frankly speaking the US withdrawing from the conflict could end it because Russia will stop once it sees that Europe doubles down (after a moment of shock and denial about us being US puppets etc), but so would America actually committing.
Where are the damn ATACMS, America? Guarantees of delivering Abrams for years on end no-matter-what?
"We could have won if we tried harder" is U.S. cope from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Afghanistan...
I'm not American. And no the American cope is "We won Vietnam because we had a higher kill count".
I'm German. And yes we won WWII because we got rid of the Nazis.
Both flavors of cope abound regarding Vietnam. I didn't mean to imply I assumed you were American; I'm just pointing out that "if we really took the gloves off they wouldn't stand a chance" is (1) false, (2) a way the public gets sold on the next war, and (3) a silly thing to say when whatever "gloves off" scenario one imagines isn't going to happen.
I'm German. And yes we won WWII because we got rid of the Nazis.
You Germans didn't get rid of the nazis, you were the nazis
My family tree very much would like to disagree.
And in any case it's irrelevant as liberation from the Nazis, indeed, was a liberation. How can you lose when that happens. You know who's pissed that "we lost the war"? Actual Nazis.
I can kinda see where you get the homophobia but the racism?
Calling someone a cocksucker is just an insult. Might not be used as much today, but watch Scarface for more examples.
And from Wikipedia:
Vatnik or vatnyk (Russian: ватник) is a political pejorative used in Russia and other post-Soviet states for steadfast jingoistic followers of propaganda from the Russian government.
So racist? No. I'm making fun of people who swallow Russian propaganda without thinking.
I downvoted you for being a condescending piece of shit. Can't speak for others. There was a way to make your point without being a condescending asshole, but that's not what you chose.
It is a proxy war against America. You don't win those. You just set yourself up a good position and dig in. America gets bored and leaves and then you can pick over what is left of what was destroyed. So you don't win, you just wait for America to forfeit.
this thread is wild
can we remember, everyone:
-
discussion on who is winning has no bearing on discussion of who is in the right, and vice versa
-
Russia, Ukraine, and NATO can all be evil and wrong for separate and true reasons
-
criticizing NATO does not amount to supporting Putin
-
criticizing Putin does not amount to supporting NATO
-
Except that Donetsk is not a legally recognized country. And Khodakovsky is a militant who has been responsible for destabilizing and destroying his own country by starting a civil war.
I just can't imagine why people would rise up against a regime that was doing these things to their own people
- https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
- https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bN68OfFKaWs
- https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2022/08/10/what-ive-seen-of-ukraines-war-crimes-against-civilians-in-the-donbass-over-the-years/
Oo, now share the one of a Russian beheading a live Ukrainian soldier on camera.
Well, neither is Taiwan, but that doesn't stop people like you from constantly whining about it.
Whataboutism is when your blatant hypocrisy and lack of logical, moral and ideological backbone is pointed out. Whataboutism is when it is made clear you do not actually hold the values you claim to hold.
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.
Whataboutism is the redoubt of the intellectually impoverished and/or lazy.
Almost every time I see it it's used to mean, "Don't you dare talk shit about my country, try that in a small town you liberal commie [slur]" but for the type of person who is just as nationalistic, but doesn't want to admit it.
Maybe the Ukrainians should negotiate and recognize the Donbas as no longer their territory somce the people living there have have democratically expressed that they want to leave. Then this can be over. Of course they could only negotiate if the US/NATO allows it, which is why this war keeps going on
That's not how it works, there's lots of seperatist regions the world over that don't get to just take their part of the country and leave.
I dunno, I think we should respect the voice and choice of the people, this being a democracy and all. If people vote for something we have to respect it, like it or not, this isn't some authoritarian nightmare state were we supress democratic parties we disagree with and repress minorities like Roma or jews, right?
Would you support the richest region of a country to separate by locals-only referendum so they don't have to support the poor ones anymore?
no no no ,... if they have the right Friends , or if they fight against the convinent enemy , it is absolutly possible ... its always just geopolitics in the end ..,
Sorry but the Slaugther of the Donbass will be stopped. Even if you dont Care for it.
Edit: found someone who finally linked some actual evidence I can observe so I may remove all of this text I crossed out and recant my entire statement depending on how convincing it is.
Edit 2: The War in Donbas, 2014...
Sounds like Ukraine went Tankie Mode to put down separatists, except instead of using literal tanks to do it, they sloppily shelled with artillery at great range. Poroshenko was in charge at the time. It was almost ten years ago but I remember just barely well enough that I still hate his fucking guts even to this day.
Finger pointing abounds as far as who exactly is responsible for all the "Russian Volunteers" who "Appeared" "of their own free will". Truth is, even if someone else may choose to blame Russia about it, my own ethical consistency doesn't let me, because even though there are some certain and concrete differences, I am ok with people who aren't Ukrainian traveling to Ukraine and volunteering to submit themselves under the command of the Ukrainian military. I understand this is going to piss off both sides. It would be hypocritical to be against one side sending outsiders to fight in Ukraine while making excuses to permit the other side sending outsiders to fight in Ukraine.
The fact remains that Poroshenko's administration handled this extremely fucking poorly to say the least and that handling included the slaughter of over THREE THOUSAND CIVILIANS.
Even IF the actions of the Ukrainian leadership did not directly result in some proportion of those civilian casualties, it still happened on their turf and under their watch.
This is part of why Poroshenko lost to Zelenskyy in 2019. During 2018, Zelenskyy stated in interviews that he wanted to negotiate with Russia to bring peace to the rebellion in the Donbas region instead of blasting it to hell like Poroshenko was. Too little too late. Oh well.It would have been nice if a neutral party could have swept in, disabled all combat capability from either faction in Donbas, overseen a vote without any guns held to anyone's heads, with full public observability by the entire world - except there are no neutral parties. Everybody is on a side.
Maybe no single nation should be in charge of Crimea and Donbas. Not even Ukraine.
Sadly, I don't think it's likely that the world will come together to oust all armed personnel, whether insurgent or loyalist, from these regions, using UN Peacekeeper forces, until shit calms down enough for the civilians who live there to self-determine their future without being coerced. Except it's highly arguable that this will fucking count as coercion TOO. -_-
Anyway,
My stance is still that Russia should have stayed the fuck home, and should go back there, and if they JUST did that, then no one else would have to die in the Donbas region.
... Unless the separatists breached the ceasefires AGAIN.
AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND...
you say this shit as if anyone enjoys the fact that people who live there are embroiled in a war.This only became the case when Russia invaded.Nobody who purports the position that Ukraine was enacting genocide ever shows evidence of ethnic cleansing happening in the Donbas region prior to the Russian invasion. Of course, evidence of it happening after the Russian invasion is everywhere: all the civilians Russia executed in the street, visible from satellite images even before areas are taken back by the rightful sovereignty of Ukraine to whence it belonged prior to the invasion. By Russia.All people ever tell me is "trust me bro" or try to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of a coverup, which are, notably, the same techniques american conservative fascist GOP-Simps use when trying to convince others that trans people are pedophiles and rapists.> my source: this propagandistic youtube videomy. how credible.People will stop dying in Donbas when Russian invaders stop killing the Ukrainians who live there.While I'm happy to see you've come back on some of your previous points, your edit is pretty fuckin heinous to say the least.
To say ukraine went 'full tankie' while the people you'd happily refer to as tankies gave you sources and insight just makes you come across as disengenous. The word tankie has no meaning and you use it to just denounce stuff you don't agree with.
Also, to say it'll be the people of Donbas who'll break peace treaties after ten years of living in a war zone without any evidence that that'll happen, even with evidence pointing to the contrary, is just fuckin vile.
The identity of an individual who points me to external evidence has no influence on the validity of said external evidence, and the evidence must be weighed on its own merit; to believe otherwise is ad hominem. It's true that Ukraine attempted to suppress their rebellion with extremely sloppy application of brutal force and that's tankie activity no matter who is doing it to whom.
Furthermore, as far as whatever violent tendencies may be exhibited by people who have been living in a war zone for ten years, you could be right. Or it could be that they weren't the ones who violated ceasefire repeatedly back then in the first place and wouldn't be the ones to violate such a ceasefire in such a hypothetical future - since the Russians in the PRESENT have demonstrate a pattern of repeatedly violating ceasefires and MAY sabotage it in the future while trying to frame these people (which is what "might" have been happening in actuality ten years ago)
Yes, how vile an implication it is, that Russia will attempt to hold these people hostage and use them as human shields, all over again, as if we would never see it coming.
Okay but now you're telling me that by that standard Joe Biden is a tankie?
When was the last time Joe Biden killed several thousand American rebels on American soil using the United States military?
He's unironicly a war criminal just like the last umpteen American presidents, even if we were JUST looking at his complicity in the shit America does; and the ONLY thing that makes me sad about the Trump trials is that it's only happening to ONE president we've had and not every living president.
But he still hasn't crushed an American rebellion by slaughtering thousands of Americans with artillery on American soil.
Gotta be specific with crimes.
Or are you telling me you DON'T think what Petro Poroshenko did to his own civilians was a tankie job?
I don't, because I think tankie is a stupid term used by stupid people. So you're saying Lincoln was a tankie?
I could give you an honest answer or I could acknowledge how you're widely broadcasting total disinterest and outright contempt for the subject, and subsequently block you because it's clear you're not interested in any discussion in good faith and my feed MIGHT actually be better off without you in it. Can you give me any reason why I should invest the time and energy into the former instead of the latter?
... Fuck.
I really WAS looking forward to blocking you. AND you didn't give me a good reason not to. BUT,
the more I think about it, the more I find myself liking your question and feel myself WANTING to explore it.
At first, I asked myself if I could say "yeah, actually" but clearly THAT would be untrue - and not just for the reason that battle tanks weren't even invented yet at the time, but because even though lots of people hurl the word "tankie" around as a blanket insult with no real meaning, I'm instead actually honestly trying to mean something specific - It's not JUST killing your own people because they oppose you politically (using the figurative "you" here, not the literal you). It's the amount of intentional civilian casualties.
When people take up arms for a cause, they're self-selecting into the combat role, after all. Executing a planned, organized attack upon a government's assets is not a civilian behavior. It's either the behavior of an enemy (to said government) soldier or the behavior of a criminal. It's not innocent. The rebels in the American civil war were certainly not innocent bystanders.
What characterizes it would have to be the intentional and systematic slaughter of non-combatant civilians who were not engaging in battlefield maneuvers.
While this DID apparently happen in the American civil war, contributing to the civilian death toll of some 50,000 people, it was largely the actions of general Sherman, who unilaterally chose, regardless of actual orders, to burn entire cities.
I can't speak for you, obviously, but if a group exhibits all the behavioral phenomenon we presently associate with, say fascism, EVEN IF the actions and events concerned occurred before fascism was ever recognized or named, illuminating these behavioral facets by CALLING it "fascism" still possess communicative utility. Maybe meet half way and call it proto-fascism.
Likewise, if one were to call Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's actions during the American Civil War "proto-tankie", I'd be hard pressed to honestly disagree with them.
When it comes to the defining incidents of the term, though - the Prague Spring - the "rebellion" didn't declare war, they merely elected someone the Soviets didn't like, and for that, 165,000 troops and just over 4,600 tanks were dispatched and nearly ALL the resulting casualties were civilians, even with the elected leader of the time telling the civilians NOT to resist for the sake of their safety. Thankfully the number of civilian casualties were relatively few, with less than a hundred murdered and only just over 250 severely wounded.
The other oft-cited incident, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, actually featured armed insurgency and makes no distinctions clear enough regarding how many of the ~3,000 Hungarian casualties exactly were armed, organized, and mobilized, so I for one hold it in less critical a light than what Sherman did in the American Civil War.
When it comes to what Petro Poroshenko did in Ukraine, he actually admitted on video that he intended to make civilians suffer and fear for their lives, to make children cower in basements, in order to coerce compliance from them. Them, meaning, people who didn't even declare any intention to pick a fight with his administration in the first place! Punishing them for the "crime" of merely living in the same municipal area as alleged insurgents.
If you don't want to call it "tankie", fine.
But this IS a pattern of politically motivated state sponsored brutality that DOES recur throughout history and whatever you DO choose to call it deserves to be named, shamed, and blamed for giving Russia any justification whatsoever to "protect civilians" in the Donbas region by invading Ukraine.
In short, Lincoln wasn't a tankie, but Sherman may have been a proto-tankie.
Haha one of the Failed States of America's only two based moments
https://youtu.be/AAFEWL0-1sc
okay so here is the old president of ukraine...
fun little wikipedia rabbithole
OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and the (in this case prolematic) Linar Passing of Time ...
Show
Show
Show
Show
Feel free to add comrads ... Wisdom llies not in choosing your trench ... it lies in viewing both trenches...
OK for real though I am looking forward to reading up on Operation Aerodynamic.
Just because I'm not ok with the CIA sending operatives to foment rebellions, astroturf political movements, rig elections, and overthrow sovereign states does not have any influence on the fact that they definitely fucking do that shit.
The fact that they definitely do it, though, does not make it ok for anyone else to do it either.
Russia's used the "turnabout is fair play" card in 'encouraging' 'veterans' to 'volunteer' 'assisting' 'separatist insurgents' in Donbas. Although I hate to see it, and wish they hadn't done it, the rationale behind why they expected to get away with it is clear. Even right now, lots of non-Ukrainians are volunteering (with or without airquotes) to aid the Ukrainian military.
Some might tell me "that's not the same thing!!!" while others will tell me "that's LITERALLY the same thing!!!" and however one wishes to characterize it, it's definitely happening and it's going to keep happening because the utility of it is too high. Russia's gonna keep doing it. America's gonna keep doing it. Proxy war.Now I can face the fact that the actual reason that I want Russia to lose is the same reason I want the American republican party to be extinguished AND the democrat party to be blown out afterward: conservative traditionalist fascistic authoritarian theocracies deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and swept into the dustbin of history where they fucking belong. European influence has historically weakened these death cult brain-viruses. Europe being far more left-leaning and socialist than America may ever be in my life time makes them the preferable alternative to Russia's literal jailing and execution of LGBT people. Encoded into their very fucking law books.
Russia's used the "turnabout is fair play" card in 'encouraging' 'veterans' to 'volunteer' 'assisting' 'separatist insurgents' in Donbas
Okay so you claim that the Revolution that the left part of the Map does is Legit , and "wholisitc Peoples will" (even through its leads to Civil War ) .. the REACTION of the Part of the Country that just lost THEIR FUCKING PRESIDENT AND THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR OWN LANGUAGE , is just a Russian Operation ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Maidan : "Fuck yeah TV told me ! "
"Slavyiansk , Odessa , Kramatosrk , Donestk , Luhansk , Mariupol , kherson , Kharkov , Dneperpetrosk , Crimea etc. all rebellling in Reaction ? " , "well thats just a russian operation , i can not forgive them !!!"
okay imagine Canada has a Quebecian President , he then gets unconstituionally removed by Canadian Faschist in the non french speaking Capital , the New Goverment that spend all their time proclaiming their Hate for Quebecians and forbides the french Language , and you try to go around telling me that the
"Seperatist movement gathering in Quebec is some perfidious French operation .... nothing natural about it .. they Love beeing bombed & hated , you have fallen for French Missinformation Sweety "
Show
Show
Sorry the first reply was to "Fronting" , your on a good way , the Maidan spell sits deep , it also sat deep in me once. True Power is True Power , and if you ever heard of "Softpower" .. this is it ...
That you currently belive that the "Maidan" is the great and Glorious Peoples Will" & "The Donbass revolution is is perfidious Russian lies" and against the will of the People" is US Softpower ..
if you ever heard about the Concept ,SOFTPOWER it is the ability of the US State to make you Hate somebody.
conservative traditionalist fascistic authoritarian theocracies deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth and swept into the dustbin of history where they fucking belong.
i think you heard about it... ,
They do when the democratically elected government is overthrown in a coup and the far right replacements start passing laws targeted at making people of your ethnic background illegal. Especially when the shelling starts, you do.
If only the little man at the big table didn’t have such a Napoleon complex
Brits have little selfawarness , its a impressive National feat they Demonstrate proudly at every oportunity ...
"Fucking invading scum these Russkies arnt they ? , and Undemocratic even ! "
Remind me, how tall is Zelenskyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?
The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.
"Freezing the war along the current frontlines" is victory for Russia?? They already control all the territory they claim. I guess at this point Ukraine is starting to define winning as mere survival.
I like how you take a Russian quote and then try to somehow twist it to be about how Ukraine defines victory. It's a blatantly dishonest bit of casuistry, yet here you are heavily upvoted. It's an unfortunate indicator of the kinds of people populating this thread. We're overrun by idiots and liars.
No, I'm not taking a Russian quote, I'm taking commentary from an article from the Kyev Post which equates a Russian quote about "Freezing the war on the current lines" as not winning for Russia. That implies that the Kyev Post considers freezing the war on the current lines as a victory for Ukraine, which contradicts the idea that Ukraine would need to reclaim territory to achieve victory. How on earth am I being dishonest, an idiot, or a liar?
Most of the oblasts they annexed, they do not control so they definitely do not control all the territory they claim.
If you want to know what the smartest guy in the US military thinks, read this
(Assuming, of course, that you don't consider the Marine Corps Gazette to be Russian propaganda)
Show
Show
Show
Show
Ukraine is on its fourth army, which has been badly mauled in a counterattack lasting two months with gains measured in single digit miles and casualties in the tens of thousands.
Show
This is who they were sending to the front in APRIL LAST YEAR
Show
Old men and boys
But at least Russia's out of missiles!
Show
I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion. And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare. Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward. They are just trying to hold on to what they took in those first few months and are very slowly failing at that. If Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose. I do not think Russia will use nukes -- any use of a nuke is basically on Russia's own land -- according to them -- and will affect them as much as Ukraine. But the question of ending the war is an interesting one. Do we see Russia continuing the war if they lose most of their ill-gotten territorial gains? What happens to those insecure areas? Are people going to rebuild, i.e. invest scarce resources in unstable areas? Or will they just become dead zones, DMZ borders?
Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose.
You have a whole entire counteroffensive that shows the exact opposite.
Also
has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion.
Have you taken a look at a map of the current situation? That's just straight up bullshit
because we are not barbarians
Except for Azov, Banderites, and all the other assorted trash you allow to thrive in your shithole
Even if screeching about muh whattaboutism wasn't a thought terminating cliche, an insult is not a whattaboutism.
And they call me propagandized. Of course since you're Ukrainian you experience this war totally different than I, but nothing on the ground suggests that even a slither of what you've just said is true.
nationalism is like leprosy .. a state once infected is left with his territories severed from it, its youth withered away into the now foreign grounds and its spirits broken under the Mad screams of the unrelentlessly uneffected ...
Don't be mean to them, they're manifesting victory and you're harshing the energy.
has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion
Gotta have a highly specific definition of "victory" to say something like this
I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has spent the past 9 months creating multilayered defences that the Ukrainian army has been banging their head against for the past 10 weeks. Ukraine no longer has a functioning military industry of its own or even an economy to speak of. It's entirely dependent on the west at this point.
NATO scrounged up all they had for this offensive, and US even ran out of shells to give having to resort to cluster munitions. NATO also trained Ukrainian soldiers. Now all of this is being lost without any actual progress being made. Ukraine hasn't even managed to reach the first defence line being mired in the security zone.
What we will see is that once the offensive burns itself out, Russia will start an offensive of their own against a depleted and demoralized Ukrainian army. The west will not be able to send more ammunition and equipment because it doesn't exist, and Ukraine will have lost majority of their trained and motivated soldiers who can't be replaced.
Even western sources are now admitting that Ukraine is suffering far higher losses than Russia, and that this is primarily an artillery battle where Russia vastly outnumbers Ukrainian artillery. 80% of casualties were being caused by Russian artillery.
I'm pretty sure once Ukraine has thrown away enough lives trying to get to the first line of defense, Russia is going to use their mobilized army to roll up the coast line all the way up to Transnistria.
Ukraine will run out of material before they reach the Azov sea. You can calculate this yourself based on the verified losses and land gained. In addition manpower isn't infinite for Ukraine.
Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward.
You don't play RTS games, do you? The fun thing about a strong defensive line is that you can kill a whole lot of their guys for every one of your guys that they kill, and if you have enough guys they're going to run out long before you do.
What happens to those insecure areas?
The Nazis probably genocide the Russian speaking Ukrainians that live there, either by driving them out using terror, or just killing them all. Probably a combination of both.
And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare
The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon. IIRC, Ukraine has had a shortage of airplanes to use. Russia has been very reluctant to use the airplanes that they have because they keep getting shot down, and they simply can't replace them at the speed necessary (especially since their economy has crashed, and China is the only country that can supply them with the circuitry that they need).
A bigger problem is that Russia has air defenses and air bases inside Russia. NATO in general has been very reluctant to transfer offensive weapons to Ukraine that would make it possible to strike those--entirely legitimate--targets inside of Russia, because that would be an escalation. But to have air superiority, you need to ensure that those SAM batteries, RADAR installations, and forward air bases are not in the picture. So to break the stalemate, Ukraine has to be able to make strikes against Russia, in Russian territory. That's potentially very dangerous.
If it's allowed to grind on, Russia wins eventually, because they have a population many times the size of Ukraine, and can keep throwing bodies at them. So Ukraine needs to win air superiority, which means striking targets inside of Russia.
Are you still of the opinion that Russia is slowly losing its position and is incapable of moving forward?
thats a very interesting point of view puplished by the Ukrainian Newspaper Kyivpost
Show
5 is inaccurate for Ukraine, they're proud of the war crimes they commit.
Which country invaded Ukraine again? Was that Ukraine or Russia...?
what's that liberal favorite again? ah yes, "whataboutism"! what does your comment have to do with anything?
Well west ukraine started bombing the shit out of east ukraine after Maidan so you could say it was Ukraine
the Donbass ?
Show
Show
Show
Show
EDIT: here is the President explicently explaining whyUkraine is Problemetic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
Lol I read the whole thread. Yeah somebody is definitely winning this mess shall we interview the pile of bodies on the east side or the west side hmm I don't know
no notes baby keep it up
