Reminder: As the aggressor in an imperialist colonialist war, Russia can end the war at any time, just by returning all its troops to its own territory. The continuation of the war is purely the choice of the extreme right-wing Russian dictator and his cronies, who continue to violently exploit the Russian people.
Exactly. If this were remotely true, it would have been cheaper to just buy the old weapon systems from Ukraine.
Not really, as you argue without respect to the core of the problem, that is, the US is building a geopolitical tool next to Russia's borders (obviously against Russia). Even if Putin suddenly disappears, another politician will get support from Russia's elite and probably easy consent from the Russian public to pursue an anti-NATO foreign policy.
Nothing will change until the US will change it's foreign policy towards Russia and stop meddling with countries bordering with Russia.
Also this does not contradict that Russia is not an oligarchy or Putin is not a dictator, before you call me pro-Putin. Russia can be the aggressor, an "extreme right-wing dictator ship" that attacked Ukraine and at the same time Ukraine was set up like a red flag in front of a bull by the West.
Remember, there is no reason a country like Russia should perceive the US and its vassal states as friendly. They have no way to assume whatever they do with Ukraine or try to do with Belarus is not against them. In fact, the opposite is true, the foreign policy of the US writes that Russia is their enemy and they will allocate so and so much funds to fight it. You think you need to be a right-wing dictator or an ex-KGB agent to grasp that the goal of the west is to subdue your political class or to turn your country into a gas colony for them?
But of course, being a biased lib that thinks the world is built like Lord of the Rings or a comic book, what's class consciousness to you? You believe that there are ebil people like Putin, that suddenly went crazy and decided to invade Ukraine for no reason than being evil.
Don't you think if the Russian capitalists are investing so much money into the war because they see Ukraine as a pawn of the US and as a threat? And they will continue fund it if it stays a threat to them, beyond Putin? Nah, they put in billions for the lolz. Because Putin said so.
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There's more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There's even more NATO border incoming that didn't exist before. Staying, expending more of your people's lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It's only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
Even if
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say "therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure" or "therefore Russia's capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term"? Again, what's up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
I mean, who are the winners in a Cold War at all? You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say "therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure" or "therefore Russia's capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term"? Again, what's up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
Got it.
You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
For the world population, maybe. There's an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can't see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn't manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There's a lot of maybes and mights in there. That's just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.
Not true. With the USSR went the need to support any social services in the US since there was no alternative ideology anymore, so it was a loss for the working class of the US, which is the majority. It was a rhetorical question, which you didn't get.
Also btw, the USSR collapsed not because of internal strife and balkanization, that was the result. It collapsed because of the introduction of profit/market economy.
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
LMAO out of all of this you mention the Chernobyl disaster, which makes me think you learn Soviet history through your Britbong "History" tv series. Maybe next you watch as well a Netflix episode on the Russian Tsar?
Which Soviet leader betrayed the Afghan government and pulled out the military again, led the Socialist Afghanistan to collapse under terrorists?
Which Soviet leader did everything the Americans told him, took IMF loans and put in market elements during an economic stagnation, just like pouring oil into a fire?
Ah, I know, Europeans gave a loud applause after his "performance" and gave that traitor a nobel prize and a passport to live in Germany. You would never admit the bastard caused any of this because you guys suck his D in your history lessons.
followed by many republics declaring independence
you mean re-introduced neofeudalism and cut off partnership with the only country that made sure they have energy, manufacturing and built powerstations, schools and infrastructure with them?
Go ask Moldavia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Usbekistan, the Baltics, ... how their new independence feels like? Hell, ask Afghans the last time they flew into space?
I'm guessing the last time they flew into space was just before they brutally defeated and humiliated the red army.
They had a nice society before the USSR invaded, btw.
The last time they flew in space was when they cooperated with Soviets. And they didn't invade wtf? The red army was invited by the socialist Afghanistan government to fight the terrorist backed by the US. Which later actually invaded and then used the geological maps created and given to the Afghans by Soviets decades prior (where they hoped the people of Afghanistan will use them to built their economy) to extract resources lmao And finally fled from the airport in Kabul, which was built by the USSR...
They had a nice society before Mujahideen and the Taliban, financed by the US, btw. (Actually the Taliban at least prohibited drug trafficking contrary to yanks and nato fascists)
Bro Russia would easily be the wealthiest country in Europe if they weren't obsessed with being global antagonists. Lmao, they literally say that cringe shit out loud every time they talk about "Anglo Saxons" on Russian media. They know their entire schtick is fucking them over, yet they still do it.
They could legitimately accomplish every hard and soft power objective they have by just not being like this.
And if the ruling class didn't keep obscene amounts of wealth from reaching the average Russian.
I feel like you want to have this argument with someone and, sure, go for it, but I feel like you're painting OP as the average /r/worldnews poster, and that's a very rude thing to do. For all I know they might agree with you but the hostility isn't helping.
Sorry if this is a little forward or "tone policing", it just bugged me.
What in OP's comment did not seem like reddit r/worldnews level to you? And no, I don't expect to get a reply nor a discussion with OP, it just appears to me that the top comments are usually simple one-liners, so I thought I elaborate this time on an alternative view and mock their (possible) world view that they put out as some common fact
What in OP’s comment did not seem like reddit r/worldnews level to you?
For starters, they recognized russian people also as exploited victims of the ruling class. Instead of the usual comparing them to orcs or whatever.
I don't think it's productive to argue with a version of someone you came up with. There's a way to make a point about US foreign policy and capital's role in the war without mocking people.
This is pretty much how Bush & USA justified pre-emptive strikes against non-existent WMDs. Russia don't need to see their neighbors as friendly instead of neutral, and they definitely don't need to conquer them just in case.
nice whataboutism.
Doesn't fit into the definition of whataboutism
What you said was completely unrelated and now you want to debate a different box. Classic western disinformation
This is not a debate, nor was anything I said unrelated. US is as western as it gets and my comment shows contempt towards such actions. The same logic applies to both cases of unjustified per-emptive attacks.
That's not whataboutism, both are wrong by the exact same standard, in America's case we should have worked with the international community to ensure Iraq was unable to make progress in WMDs (if that's what we actually cared about).
In russia's case they could just be nicer to their neighbors.
If I abuse my wife and she leaves me for someone else, that's not the fault of the wife or other man, that's on me.
Bro did you even read the initial comment and my long answer to that? My whole point was that russia, was put into a geopolitical corner and had to react out of material reasons, independent of their leadership. You come up with "be nice to your neighbors" as if the USA doesn't meddle with their peripheral states and tries to put up bases there. LOL I wish I could see the world as simple as darth vader vs luke skywalker like you do
Russia was put in a geopolitical corner.
By russia.
They attacked Georgia in 2008, they attacked ukraine in 2014.
This is why nobody likes them and everybody wants to see them suffer, this is why so many countries were happy to give ukraine weapons if it meant Russian invaders would die.
Russia is a bully nation, and we get to watch that most beautiful moment, when the bullied stands up and blasts their bully in the face with a himars.
Putin won't last through the year, the thunder run destroyed his aura of invulnerability, I look forward to watching him do his Nick II impression.
Putin wasn't 'put in a position', he's the ruler of Russia, he has agency, and now we get to watch the Russian people pay the price for his stupidity.
Reminder: As the aggressor in an imperialist colonialist war, Russia can end the war at any time, just by returning all its troops to its own territory. The continuation of the war is purely the choice of the extreme right-wing Russian dictator and his cronies, who continue to violently exploit the Russian people.
Exactly. If this were remotely true, it would have been cheaper to just buy the old weapon systems from Ukraine.
Not really, as you argue without respect to the core of the problem, that is, the US is building a geopolitical tool next to Russia's borders (obviously against Russia). Even if Putin suddenly disappears, another politician will get support from Russia's elite and probably easy consent from the Russian public to pursue an anti-NATO foreign policy.
Nothing will change until the US will change it's foreign policy towards Russia and stop meddling with countries bordering with Russia.
Also this does not contradict that Russia is not an oligarchy or Putin is not a dictator, before you call me pro-Putin. Russia can be the aggressor, an "extreme right-wing dictator ship" that attacked Ukraine and at the same time Ukraine was set up like a red flag in front of a bull by the West.
Remember, there is no reason a country like Russia should perceive the US and its vassal states as friendly. They have no way to assume whatever they do with Ukraine or try to do with Belarus is not against them. In fact, the opposite is true, the foreign policy of the US writes that Russia is their enemy and they will allocate so and so much funds to fight it. You think you need to be a right-wing dictator or an ex-KGB agent to grasp that the goal of the west is to subdue your political class or to turn your country into a gas colony for them?
But of course, being a biased lib that thinks the world is built like Lord of the Rings or a comic book, what's class consciousness to you? You believe that there are ebil people like Putin, that suddenly went crazy and decided to invade Ukraine for no reason than being evil.
Don't you think if the Russian capitalists are investing so much money into the war because they see Ukraine as a pawn of the US and as a threat? And they will continue fund it if it stays a threat to them, beyond Putin? Nah, they put in billions for the lolz. Because Putin said so.
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There's more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There's even more NATO border incoming that didn't exist before. Staying, expending more of your people's lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It's only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say "therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure" or "therefore Russia's capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term"? Again, what's up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
I mean, who are the winners in a Cold War at all? You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
Got it.
For the world population, maybe. There's an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can't see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn't manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There's a lot of maybes and mights in there. That's just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.
Not true. With the USSR went the need to support any social services in the US since there was no alternative ideology anymore, so it was a loss for the working class of the US, which is the majority. It was a rhetorical question, which you didn't get.
Also btw, the USSR collapsed not because of internal strife and balkanization, that was the result. It collapsed because of the introduction of profit/market economy.
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
LMAO out of all of this you mention the Chernobyl disaster, which makes me think you learn Soviet history through your Britbong "History" tv series. Maybe next you watch as well a Netflix episode on the Russian Tsar?
Which Soviet leader betrayed the Afghan government and pulled out the military again, led the Socialist Afghanistan to collapse under terrorists?
Which Soviet leader did everything the Americans told him, took IMF loans and put in market elements during an economic stagnation, just like pouring oil into a fire?
Ah, I know, Europeans gave a loud applause after his "performance" and gave that traitor a nobel prize and a passport to live in Germany. You would never admit the bastard caused any of this because you guys suck his D in your history lessons.
you mean re-introduced neofeudalism and cut off partnership with the only country that made sure they have energy, manufacturing and built powerstations, schools and infrastructure with them?
Go ask Moldavia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Usbekistan, the Baltics, ... how their new independence feels like? Hell, ask Afghans the last time they flew into space?
I'm guessing the last time they flew into space was just before they brutally defeated and humiliated the red army.
They had a nice society before the USSR invaded, btw.
The last time they flew in space was when they cooperated with Soviets. And they didn't invade wtf? The red army was invited by the socialist Afghanistan government to fight the terrorist backed by the US. Which later actually invaded and then used the geological maps created and given to the Afghans by Soviets decades prior (where they hoped the people of Afghanistan will use them to built their economy) to extract resources lmao And finally fled from the airport in Kabul, which was built by the USSR...
They had a nice society before Mujahideen and the Taliban, financed by the US, btw. (Actually the Taliban at least prohibited drug trafficking contrary to yanks and nato fascists)
Bro Russia would easily be the wealthiest country in Europe if they weren't obsessed with being global antagonists. Lmao, they literally say that cringe shit out loud every time they talk about "Anglo Saxons" on Russian media. They know their entire schtick is fucking them over, yet they still do it.
They could legitimately accomplish every hard and soft power objective they have by just not being like this.
And if the ruling class didn't keep obscene amounts of wealth from reaching the average Russian.
I feel like you want to have this argument with someone and, sure, go for it, but I feel like you're painting OP as the average /r/worldnews poster, and that's a very rude thing to do. For all I know they might agree with you but the hostility isn't helping.
Sorry if this is a little forward or "tone policing", it just bugged me.
What in OP's comment did not seem like reddit r/worldnews level to you? And no, I don't expect to get a reply nor a discussion with OP, it just appears to me that the top comments are usually simple one-liners, so I thought I elaborate this time on an alternative view and mock their (possible) world view that they put out as some common fact
For starters, they recognized russian people also as exploited victims of the ruling class. Instead of the usual comparing them to orcs or whatever.
I don't think it's productive to argue with a version of someone you came up with. There's a way to make a point about US foreign policy and capital's role in the war without mocking people.
This is pretty much how Bush & USA justified pre-emptive strikes against non-existent WMDs. Russia don't need to see their neighbors as friendly instead of neutral, and they definitely don't need to conquer them just in case.
nice whataboutism.
Doesn't fit into the definition of whataboutism
What you said was completely unrelated and now you want to debate a different box. Classic western disinformation
This is not a debate, nor was anything I said unrelated. US is as western as it gets and my comment shows contempt towards such actions. The same logic applies to both cases of unjustified per-emptive attacks.
That's not whataboutism, both are wrong by the exact same standard, in America's case we should have worked with the international community to ensure Iraq was unable to make progress in WMDs (if that's what we actually cared about).
In russia's case they could just be nicer to their neighbors.
If I abuse my wife and she leaves me for someone else, that's not the fault of the wife or other man, that's on me.
Bro did you even read the initial comment and my long answer to that? My whole point was that russia, was put into a geopolitical corner and had to react out of material reasons, independent of their leadership. You come up with "be nice to your neighbors" as if the USA doesn't meddle with their peripheral states and tries to put up bases there. LOL I wish I could see the world as simple as darth vader vs luke skywalker like you do
Russia was put in a geopolitical corner.
By russia.
They attacked Georgia in 2008, they attacked ukraine in 2014.
This is why nobody likes them and everybody wants to see them suffer, this is why so many countries were happy to give ukraine weapons if it meant Russian invaders would die.
Russia is a bully nation, and we get to watch that most beautiful moment, when the bullied stands up and blasts their bully in the face with a himars.
Putin won't last through the year, the thunder run destroyed his aura of invulnerability, I look forward to watching him do his Nick II impression.
Putin wasn't 'put in a position', he's the ruler of Russia, he has agency, and now we get to watch the Russian people pay the price for his stupidity.