1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.
Finally, there's the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it's different when you share a language and culture.
I think where you are deviating from the wider hexbear opinion here, and also where I think you're wrong, is based in a belief that precedents are meaningful first off. Before this war was even thought about, these realities were already clear to all powerful people in the world. Acting from the basic material assumptions (and proving that they are ALREADY true) is not making them true. Not having nukes has been a death sentence to countries (eventually, without socialism) since the moment the first one existed. This war doesn't impact that nor how rational global actors work. The ability to do "naked aggression" literally never went away, it was just hidden in plain sight with shitty western justifications. Every world power understood this well before this war, and their rational/justifications won't be impacted. Only new material conditions to work from will arise. Russia's loss or success actually only would give 1 major new piece of info to the world: is it possible to offensively take in the Imperial core indirectly without the result being total destruction of yourself? That's what we're going to learn. We learned from Korea and Vietnam that fighting defensively can work. We learned from middle eastern imperial wars that guerilla struggle is possible to slowly tire out the US.
We will Also learn small details about fighting and material and weapons and strategy, of course. But the worldwide impact is literally just "is it possible to defend yourself from US interests WITH OFFENSE?"
Also I agree with CyborgMarx, best case scenario is Donbas is free to choose to be Russian along with Crimea and Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between NATO and Russia after a loss
You've obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.
Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people's willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, "rules-based diplomacy" just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That "just a bit" part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.
The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It's very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it's the honest truth.
As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you're saying with that final sentence is "Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists".
I disagree entirely that that "just a bit" exists at all. Direct imperial wars were limited only by the conditions and interests of the imperial power, and the justifications only resulted in extra work AFTERWARD the decisions were made to make convincing arguments (or find a way to hide the war).
With all due respect, you're not just influences by perspective or lack of impartiality, but by your own interests. Being just west of Ukraine means that the fascistic border for expropriation (I mean from the West, but also possibly from Russia) will come closer the further west Russia can push. You benefit at least minmially from global imperialism by having that expropriation lead to imports on your side. I don't blame you for desiring to not be hurt by that "border" movement, and I have to hope I will stay strong and support my comrades and movement when that inevitably comes to my place and not try to gain/maintain personal benefits. It's always violent, just usually somewhere else.
This article is the best description for my understanding of Fascism: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/
Russia is just as fascist as every capitalist government. But so far, Crimea hasn't been experiencing the violence anymore than any other group and less than from the imperial core when they were under Ukraine. If "more fascist" means more violent and expropriating more", which is in line wiht that essay, then I think Russia is less fascist. They have legitimately experienced less of the expropriation than before. I think Donbas would be the same, and there's a chance that that continues westward as fascism attempts to consume the border regions for profits.
I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word "fascist" means compared to you, which I'm glad you've identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we're just talking about different things. I'll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I'll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.
Yeah my definition is more "niche" but I just fundamentally disagree withe philosophical underpinnings of definition like Umberto Eco gave and such. I think it's clearly a liberal definition lacking in material or dialectical understanding of the world and fails to ever define anything really.
Regardless, definition itself isnt the basis of the convo. If what I call fascism was called "time-location-based-expropriation-interests", we could still have the convo. we're talking about real things regardless of the word. I still think we disagree after that though, unless the essay also convinces you of an evil you didn't previously understand and results in you agreeing with my analysis or so.
Over everything else, but sometimes the libs give you a nice tasty bait, one you just gotta nibble on and work hard to clean right off in front of everyone you know
Show
But genuinely, fine with discussing until someone obviously deserves a PPB, but until I see a slur or a knowing defense of fascism (I give temporary allowances to those who seem confused), I give my time to the posting wars
Yeah nah bro the Russian speakers of the Donbass and especially Crimea don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed by a bunch of bloodthirsty Ukrainian nationalists hopped up on fantasies of revenge
Also the "naked conquest precedent" in international politics was already set by the US in 2003, hence the neutrality over this current conflict by all states outside the west and it's puppets
having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have
the US has been doing exactly this and setting up puppet states since the end of WWII, has never stopped for a second, and will never stop until they're forced to. there has never been any other precedent. prior to WWII, colonialism ruled the world.
US wars since WWII:
Korea
Vietnam
Laos
Indonesia
Lebanon
Cuba/the Bay of Pigs
Dominican Republic
Korea again
Cambodia (on the side of the fucking Khmer Rouge)
Lebanon again
Grenada
Libya
Iran
Panama
Iraq
Somalia
Bosnia/Serbia
Haiti
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Yemen
Iraq again
expansion of the war in Afghanistan to north-west Pakistan
Somalia again
Libya again, this time destroying the country so badly that slave markets opened on the streets
Uganda
Niger
Iraq a third time
Syria
Libya a third time because no shit the Islamic State took up residence, who could have seen this coming
the idea that there has EVER been a way to prevent wars without nuclear proliferation does not respect the historical record. states seeking to arm themselves with nukes is deeply rational. Cuba was under constant threat of invasion until the Soviet Union deployed nukes there -- the US refused to negotiate with the Cuban government. then, once there were nukes, what do you know! suddenly the US will negotiate and will agree not to invade Cuba.
I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
Respect the disengage, it was clear enough from the "disengage." that we could all lmao at the result. At least barbarian left without trying to get a last word
Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.
Am I allowed to engage here according to our rules? Mods, remove it if not, but seems like a good faith reading would be that I can here engage, seeing as he responded to me and I'm defending the disengage request?
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
I don't think that is reflected badly on most of the responders directly above though, in all honesty, and I will defend them against accusations of only point-scoring when they are responding in mostly large format effort-posts. The others throwing emotes and such, for sure were just scoring points.
No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
Fair points.
The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".
We have a very strong rule about disengaging where the person replied to AND ALL OTHER HEXBEARS are required to respect it. I'm technically breaking it, but I broke it by telling someone to stop breaking it so I made it a grey zone.
Sure, gish-hallop adjacent is fair. But I would maintain a distinction between gish-galloping to avoid conversation and focusing on the point which illustrates the underlying philosophical problem best. If we don't do that, the posts just get longer and longer and longer. Focusing on the aspect most illustrative can then be better for conversation. It does feel annoying though, when that philosophy isn't fully outlined through the comments. It's clear to those that agree with the other poster (I get what he's doing and what positions are being shown) but to anyone not in the "in-group" it loses that and feels like picking and choosing the arguments easiest to respond to. Hexbears posting for each other can do it, those posting to convince should do better
But you don't have to continue that style and can just call a disengage, which was a good move I think. I would encourage you to try to understand what I've said here though for understanding what the posters were saying. I do agree with them more than you after all.
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
This already had precedent when the US invaded Iraq amidst near global condemnation and more or less took Iraq's entire gold reserve like some marauding army sacking an ancient city.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
This also had precedent when NATO invaded Libya, which then prompted the DPRK to nuke up. That's reality. You're a lot more safe from invasions if you have nukes.
In general, your points only make sense if you're focusing exclusively on Europe and ignore the rest of the world.
There's a few different aspects to this:
1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.
2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.
Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.
Finally, there's the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it's different when you share a language and culture.
I think where you are deviating from the wider hexbear opinion here, and also where I think you're wrong, is based in a belief that precedents are meaningful first off. Before this war was even thought about, these realities were already clear to all powerful people in the world. Acting from the basic material assumptions (and proving that they are ALREADY true) is not making them true. Not having nukes has been a death sentence to countries (eventually, without socialism) since the moment the first one existed. This war doesn't impact that nor how rational global actors work. The ability to do "naked aggression" literally never went away, it was just hidden in plain sight with shitty western justifications. Every world power understood this well before this war, and their rational/justifications won't be impacted. Only new material conditions to work from will arise. Russia's loss or success actually only would give 1 major new piece of info to the world: is it possible to offensively take in the Imperial core indirectly without the result being total destruction of yourself? That's what we're going to learn. We learned from Korea and Vietnam that fighting defensively can work. We learned from middle eastern imperial wars that guerilla struggle is possible to slowly tire out the US.
We will Also learn small details about fighting and material and weapons and strategy, of course. But the worldwide impact is literally just "is it possible to defend yourself from US interests WITH OFFENSE?"
Also I agree with CyborgMarx, best case scenario is Donbas is free to choose to be Russian along with Crimea and Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between NATO and Russia after a loss
You've obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.
Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people's willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, "rules-based diplomacy" just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That "just a bit" part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.
The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It's very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it's the honest truth.
As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you're saying with that final sentence is "Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists".
I disagree entirely that that "just a bit" exists at all. Direct imperial wars were limited only by the conditions and interests of the imperial power, and the justifications only resulted in extra work AFTERWARD the decisions were made to make convincing arguments (or find a way to hide the war).
With all due respect, you're not just influences by perspective or lack of impartiality, but by your own interests. Being just west of Ukraine means that the fascistic border for expropriation (I mean from the West, but also possibly from Russia) will come closer the further west Russia can push. You benefit at least minmially from global imperialism by having that expropriation lead to imports on your side. I don't blame you for desiring to not be hurt by that "border" movement, and I have to hope I will stay strong and support my comrades and movement when that inevitably comes to my place and not try to gain/maintain personal benefits. It's always violent, just usually somewhere else.
This article is the best description for my understanding of Fascism: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/
Russia is just as fascist as every capitalist government. But so far, Crimea hasn't been experiencing the violence anymore than any other group and less than from the imperial core when they were under Ukraine. If "more fascist" means more violent and expropriating more", which is in line wiht that essay, then I think Russia is less fascist. They have legitimately experienced less of the expropriation than before. I think Donbas would be the same, and there's a chance that that continues westward as fascism attempts to consume the border regions for profits.
I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word "fascist" means compared to you, which I'm glad you've identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we're just talking about different things. I'll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I'll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.
Yeah my definition is more "niche" but I just fundamentally disagree withe philosophical underpinnings of definition like Umberto Eco gave and such. I think it's clearly a liberal definition lacking in material or dialectical understanding of the world and fails to ever define anything really.
Regardless, definition itself isnt the basis of the convo. If what I call fascism was called "time-location-based-expropriation-interests", we could still have the convo. we're talking about real things regardless of the word. I still think we disagree after that though, unless the essay also convinces you of an evil you didn't previously understand and results in you agreeing with my analysis or so.
deleted by creator
Thanks comrade
deleted by creator
I prefer the good ol
spoiler
Over everything else, but sometimes the libs give you a nice tasty bait, one you just gotta nibble on and work hard to clean right off in front of everyone you know
But genuinely, fine with discussing until someone obviously deserves a PPB, but until I see a slur or a knowing defense of fascism (I give temporary allowances to those who seem confused), I give my time to the posting wars
deleted by creator
no more half measures walter
deleted by creator
Who cares, socialists in imperialists countries don't support their side in proxy wars, period.
Yeah nah bro the Russian speakers of the Donbass and especially Crimea don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed by a bunch of bloodthirsty Ukrainian nationalists hopped up on fantasies of revenge
Also the "naked conquest precedent" in international politics was already set by the US in 2003, hence the neutrality over this current conflict by all states outside the west and it's puppets
the US has been doing exactly this and setting up puppet states since the end of WWII, has never stopped for a second, and will never stop until they're forced to. there has never been any other precedent. prior to WWII, colonialism ruled the world.
US wars since WWII:
the idea that there has EVER been a way to prevent wars without nuclear proliferation does not respect the historical record. states seeking to arm themselves with nukes is deeply rational. Cuba was under constant threat of invasion until the Soviet Union deployed nukes there -- the US refused to negotiate with the Cuban government. then, once there were nukes, what do you know! suddenly the US will negotiate and will agree not to invade Cuba.
deleted by creator
I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.
If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.
The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?
deleted by creator
What absolutely drives me nuts is that this conflict was rooted in very tangible nuts and bolts issues but Westerners all just think it happened because Putin personally wants to drink the tears of apple-cheeked Ukrainian children because Russians are Chaotic Evil
It's all mindless orgasmic cheerleading for war which is extra scary since it will fuck up the quality of life for Europeans for years to come
Like you can still think Putin sucks, which he does, but at least acknowledge reality
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.
Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.
On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.
Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.
The democratically elected president of Ukraine was removed in a western-backed coup and replaced with a new western-friendly president. The US hand picked the Ukrainian prime minister. The Ukrainian finance minister was an American citizen that gained Ukrainian citizenship the same day she became finance minister.
How can you possibly look at that and say it was the will of the Ukrainian people. Do you just mean that the ultranationalists that participated in the coup were Ukrainian?
disengage.
Removed by mod
Respect the disengage, it was clear enough from the "disengage." that we could all lmao at the result. At least barbarian left without trying to get a last word
Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.
Am I allowed to engage here according to our rules? Mods, remove it if not, but seems like a good faith reading would be that I can here engage, seeing as he responded to me and I'm defending the disengage request?
I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).
It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.
I don't think that is reflected badly on most of the responders directly above though, in all honesty, and I will defend them against accusations of only point-scoring when they are responding in mostly large format effort-posts. The others throwing emotes and such, for sure were just scoring points.
No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.
Fair points.
The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".
We have a very strong rule about disengaging where the person replied to AND ALL OTHER HEXBEARS are required to respect it. I'm technically breaking it, but I broke it by telling someone to stop breaking it so I made it a grey zone.
Sure, gish-hallop adjacent is fair. But I would maintain a distinction between gish-galloping to avoid conversation and focusing on the point which illustrates the underlying philosophical problem best. If we don't do that, the posts just get longer and longer and longer. Focusing on the aspect most illustrative can then be better for conversation. It does feel annoying though, when that philosophy isn't fully outlined through the comments. It's clear to those that agree with the other poster (I get what he's doing and what positions are being shown) but to anyone not in the "in-group" it loses that and feels like picking and choosing the arguments easiest to respond to. Hexbears posting for each other can do it, those posting to convince should do better
But you don't have to continue that style and can just call a disengage, which was a good move I think. I would encourage you to try to understand what I've said here though for understanding what the posters were saying. I do agree with them more than you after all.
I don’t know if he’s a nazi, or just a nazi lover, but the head of Ukraine's military, Zaluzhny, has a bust of Stepan Bandura in his office
The Russian military has no Azov, though there are certainly fascists in it. No one is saying the whole Ukrainian people are fascist, but the government promoting Banderism is indisputable.
That's the horrible thing about it, and it's true.
Russia wins, they annex either parts or all of Ukraine and resumes its power projection to spread far-Right ideology in the world and try to become the superpower nostalgics see the USSR as (but without any real or nominal socialism, just naked nationalism). Possibly start new wars too, in the medium term.
Ukraine wins, even besides the ethnic displacement and iconoclasm related to Russian culture and communism (because Russian nationalism appropriated some Soviet symbolism), you will get a west that will build up their military nonetheless and prepare itself for Round 2, while going full Crusader in spreading the "Rules Based International Order" around the world - countries like Cuba, Venezuela, China, the more reactionary ones like Iran, but also currently friendly to the west ones like Vietnam would be targeted and threatened with military action unless it "democratized" and allowed market relations. Every future endeavor to break with liberalism would be squashed immediately and proactively.
This conflict is basically a mini WW1 meatgrinder over spheres of influences and a "place under the sun", but as a proxy war - so there is no rise in socialist anti-war support.
This precedent had already been established before the SMO, compare NATO treatment of Libya with its approach to Korea.
This already had precedent when the US invaded Iraq amidst near global condemnation and more or less took Iraq's entire gold reserve like some marauding army sacking an ancient city.
This also had precedent when NATO invaded Libya, which then prompted the DPRK to nuke up. That's reality. You're a lot more safe from invasions if you have nukes.
In general, your points only make sense if you're focusing exclusively on Europe and ignore the rest of the world.
Insightful take. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with your points, but I am far more afraid of what the US gains from winning than what the russians do