Ukraine

[Seanchaidh]

So let's see how much context is shared! Dynastic political party with existing financial connections? Uhrm, nope, neither he nor the party existed in the political sphere before 2018.

Literally funded by the same billionaire plutocrat that funded the president he replaced. And owns a television station. That Zelensky starred in a TV show on. And funded a bunch of Nazi groups that, among other things, overthrew the government. You're doubling down on your garbage point by saying oh, well, it's not a plutocracy with precisely the same peculiar features as the United States.

Oh, goody, Ukrainian oligarchy has weaker parties than the United States and (relative to its parties) stronger individual oligarchs. Let freedom ring!

The alternative is letting them vote, and decide their own policy direction without violent coercion.

So without the Nazi militias, banned television stations, banned political parties...

List some countries which are not plutocracies.

To what purpose?

Sure.

But the tragedy is that your primary concern with corruption in Ukraine is not that it should be stamped out, but to condemn Ukraine and justify Russia's aggression against it.

If Silvanus thinks that Ukrainian corruption is irrelevant, he should just say that instead of coming up with fanciful arguments about how, actually, the neoliberal compradors who arbitrarily ban TV stations and political parties are accurately channeling the will of all Ukrainians.

Deluding oneself that the USA is even half as bad as Russia is a luxury of Western left-wing idiocy in people who don't have to experience the shit that goes on elsewhere.

as bad for whom? affluent white citizens within its borders?

 

[Silvanus]

Literally funded by the same billionaire plutocrat that funded the president he replaced. And owns a television station. That Zelensky starred in a TV show on. And funded a bunch of Nazi groups that, among other things, overthrew the government. You're doubling down on your garbage point by saying oh, well, it's not a plutocracy with precisely the same peculiar features as the United States.

The more important bit is further on in that very post-- you seem to have accidentally snipped it out!-- for all your whining about "billionaire funding", his expenditure was... fucking minuscule.

Money simply did not decide that election. All that's left is a complaint that a rich guy supported one and then supporter another. Big fucking whoop, that happens in every country on earth, and isn't even particularly objectionable when the amounts in question are so paltry.

So without the Nazi militias, banned television stations, banned political parties...

Ideally, yep. But the impact of those on the outcome of the election was so damn marginal, the result is still certainly representative of the public preference.

Integration with Russia is overwhelmingly unpopular, and you frankly cannot accept that, so you're inflating boogeymen to wave it away.... all while advocating that your own preferred policy be implemented by force.

If Silvanus thinks that Ukrainian corruption is irrelevant, he should just say that instead of coming up with fanciful arguments about how, actually, the neoliberal compradors who arbitrarily ban TV stations and political parties are accurately channeling the will of all Ukrainians.

It's certainly irrelevant to Russia's motivation in invading Ukraine, because we know for a fact they endorse and encourage corruption on a far larger scale. They have zero objection to it.

It was also largely irrelevant in deciding the last election, because the most corrupt candidates lost.

It's also irrelevant to your own stance, because you heartily endorse corrupt figures, and encourage corrupt courses of action (deposing the government, replacing it with a puppet owned by a foreign state).

The only thing it's relevant to is the overall health of the Ukrainian democracy. Which is very important! But... Russia wants to destroy it entirely. Absolutely nothing Russia wants to do would improve it-- only make it a hundred times worse, in line with their own vicious stranglehold.

 

[Silvanus]

as bad for whom? affluent white citizens within its borders?

Worse for anyone who wishes to unionise, who are barred from doing so in Russia and brutalised if they try.

Worse for gay people, who are rounded up and summarily executed by Kadyrov.

Worse for any independent reporters, who are arrested or murdered if their output contradicts the party line.

Worse for the working classes, who experience overwhelmingly worse living and working conditions even than in the US, but also have no recourse to collective bargaining or voting.

Worse for anyone of young adulthood and little money, who are conscripted into the army, sent to a foreign country on "drills", lied to by their own leadership about why they're there, and then executed if they refuse to march.

Worse for the families of the above, to whom the state lies about the fate of their children when they die.

Worse for you yourself! I've often found it ironic that a lot of what you post on here would get you arrested in Russia.

In fact, the only people it might possibly not be worse for would be those wealthy white people-- who belong to a gangster class in Russia, and have unfettered access to the plundered wealth of their countrymen, through state channels deliberately designed to facilitate corruption.

 

[EvilRoy]

So without the Nazi militias, banned television stations, banned political parties...

You understand that if Russia takes Ukraine those things become worse, not better, right?

I legitimately have no idea what you're trying to communicate any more. You originally told me this was about showing people that the situation is not black and white, but your every post does no more than reinforce the opposite. Ukraine has problems? Stop the fuckin presses. Every former Soviet state has problems. You would know this if you had the slightest understanding of the region prior to Russia's invasion, rather than poorly researching ways to show how Ukraine is not a paradise of equality and prosperity as a roundabout method of providing post-hoc justification of the invasion.

If any of Russia's goals had even the slightest relationship to improving life for Ukrainian civilians, then they would probably make more of an effort to not kill civilians in horrible ways.

 

[Hades]

Every former Soviet state has problems.

Which even further damns Sean's case since it implies that all those problems Ukraine and other post Soviet states are facing might directly or indirectly stem from Russia.

Worse for anyone who wishes to unionise, who are barred from doing so in Russia and brutalised if they try.

Worse for gay people, who are rounded up and summarily executed by Kadyrov.

Worse for any independent reporters, who are arrested or murdered if their output contradicts the party line.

Worse for the working classes, who experience overwhelmingly worse living and working conditions even than in the US, but also have no recourse to collective bargaining or voting.

Worse for anyone of young adulthood and little money, who are conscripted into the army, sent to a foreign country on "drills", lied to by their own leadership about why they're there, and then executed if they refuse to march.

Worse for the families of the above, to whom the state lies about the fate of their children when they die.

Worse for you yourself! I've often found it ironic that a lot of what you post on here would get you arrested in Russia.

In fact, the only people it might possibly not be worse for would be those wealthy white people-- who belong to a gangster class in Russia, and have unfettered access to the plundered wealth of their countrymen, through state channels deliberately designed to facilitate corruption.

Indeed. The Russian state seems almost aggressively opposed to providing for their population. Which would make sense given that Russian political leadership consist almost solely of gangsters robbing the state blind for their own gain.

In fact disinterest for the welfare of their subject seems a trait shared by all successive Russian governments. ''The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of a million is a statistic'' might not be a real quote, but it does seem to neatly sum up the attitude of the Russian government. At best the Russian people are expected to endure extreme suffering for the benefit of the government, at worst the Russian government directly sets out to get their citizens. Whether its the Tsars, the Soviets or Putin's ganster regime this attitude always remains the same.

 

[Silvanus]

Indeed. The Russian state seems almost aggressively opposed to providing for their population. Which would make sense given that Russian political leadership consist almost solely of gangsters robbing the state blind for their own gain.

In fact disinterest for the welfare of their subject seems a trait shared by all successive Russian governments. ''The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of a million is a statistic'' might not be a real quote, but it does seem to neatly sum up the attitude of the Russian government.

It is actually not a false quote; but it's one that originally came from an Imperial German general, not Stalin.

With regards to Russian governmental dismissiveness towards the value of life: I've argued before that the current leadership is the continuation of an imperialist, hierarchical attitude fostered first by the Russian Monarchies, and then by certain exploitative elements of the Soviet leadership.

But I actually don't think this is something that's successive, or unbroken. I don't think the same attitude was shared by Gorbachev, or even by Khruschev.

 

[Agema]

You understand that if Russia takes Ukraine those things become worse, not better, right?

+1

 

[Hawki]

+1

+10

(FTFY)

 

[Hawki]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxUPv2lh1QVi3f-eseaA17uq-jm8NWL6L2

Jesus Christ on a fucking pogo stick...

 

[Seanchaidh]

You understand that if Russia takes Ukraine those things become worse, not better, right?

Russia's main problems are the threatened expansion of NATO and the war against Ukraine's Russian separatists by the western-backed regime; the expansion of NATO is defended on the basis that Ukraine joining NATO is its sovereign right and the result of some kind of democratic mandate. That particular argument doesn't make much sense in a place that is ruled in the way that Ukraine is. Russia not being any better in that regard isn't relevant because its concerns with NATO aren't somehow more or less persuasive for having or lacking democracy, and lacking democracy isn't an acceptable pretext for NATO to maneuver to isolate a country and encircle it with hostile states joined in a historically aggressive military alliance, especially not via right-wing coup and anti-democratic measures taken against those who favor peaceful relations with Russia.

In any case, despite the fact that the comparison is mostly irrelevant to the argument, I'm not convinced Russia is remarkably worse than Ukraine in this regard. It is remarkably more the target of western war propaganda than Ukraine is, so it would be easy for it to falsely seem that way. Russia's structure seems more stable and dependent on one particular guy-- Putin-- but these are details of how there is no democracy, not extents to which there is no democracy. A triumvirate is not significantly more democratic than a solitary emperor. It might be a little more dynamic, but that is not the same thing. A plutocracy which is less settled and calcified is not more democratic for having the odd surprising-by-certain-oversimplistic-metrics (or indeed an actually surprising) result which still rigidly aligns with the interests of the ruling economic elite and their Nazi enforcers and represents no particular change in direction.

The more important bit is further on in that very post

No it's not. You just overvalue its importance. Anyway, see one paragraph above.

Worse for...

Do you really think it is so difficult to find examples of all of these among the United States and its 'allies' and vassal states? And do you honestly think the difference you perceive is the result of inclination rather than circumstance?

 

[EvilRoy]

Russia's main problems are the threatened expansion of NATO and the war against Ukraine's Russian separatists by the western-backed regime; the expansion of NATO is defended on the basis that Ukraine joining NATO is its sovereign right and the result of some kind of democratic mandate. That particular argument doesn't make much sense in a place that is ruled in the way that Ukraine is. Russia not being any better in that regard isn't relevant because its concerns with NATO aren't somehow more or less persuasive for having or lacking democracy, and lacking democracy isn't an acceptable pretext for NATO to maneuver to isolate a country and encircle it with hostile states joined in a historically aggressive military alliance, especially not via right-wing coup and anti-democratic measures taken against those who favor peaceful relations with Russia.

In any case, despite the fact that the comparison is mostly irrelevant to the argument, I'm not convinced Russia is remarkably worse than Ukraine in this regard. It is remarkably more the target of western war propaganda than Ukraine is, so it would be easy for it to falsely seem that way. Russia's structure seems more stable and dependent on one particular guy-- Putin-- but these are details of how there is no democracy, not extents to which there is no democracy. A triumvirate is not significantly more democratic than a solitary emperor. It might be a little more dynamic, but that is not the same thing. A plutocracy which is less settled and calcified is not more democratic for having the odd surprising-by-certain-oversimplistic-metrics (or indeed an actually surprising) result which still rigidly aligns with the interests of the ruling economic elite and their Nazi enforcers and represents no particular change in direction

You aren't making the point you think you're making. You keep claiming that Ukraine is a Nazi infested undemocratic country, largely unsupported, and then turn around and admit to me that Russia is about the same. That doesn't help your point, it just reinforces the irrelevance of your constant insistence that it is so. Russia and Ukraine are both plutocractic? Fine. What of it? Fact is, one of those two is attacking, killing, looting, raping, and the other is being attacked, killed, looted, raped. If it is right for Russia to attack Ukraine to protect itself from NATO encirclement and support Russian separatists, it is no less right for countries to arm Ukraine in order to keep a dangerous, nuclear armed country with heavy Nazi influences from gaining power and territory.

Sorry, but it goes both ways. The "poor Russia" defense doesn't work if they don't have a moral high ground. If Ukraine has no right to sovereignty because it doesn't meet your moral and democratic standards, then neither does Russia. You aren't arguing that Ukraine should surrender to Russia, you're arguing that the greatest threat - a large, nuclear armed, Nazi influenced, undemocratic, plutocractic, clearly unstable country - should be destroyed while the option to destroy it remains.

 

[Terminal Blue]

To what purpose?

Because I'm struggling to see the relevance of Ukraine being a plutocracy, or how that would make its government less legitimate than any other government.

For example, you've repeatedly defended the legitimacy of Yanukovych's government. Was Yanukovych's government not plutocratic? Was it less corrupt than the government that replaced it? Because the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. If corruption is relevant now, why was it not relevant then? If corruption was not relevant then, then why is it relevant now? If the president being friends with or supported by wealthy oligarchs wasn't a problem then, why is it a problem now?

Again, this all ties in to your general failure to offer any realistic political alternative to any of the things you think are bad. We can all agree that corruption in Ukraine is bad, and we can all agree that neo-Nazis are bad, but if there is no meaningful possibility of these things changing then why does it matter? Russia's invasion won't fix corruption or plutocracy in Ukraine and it certainly won't fix the neo-Nazis, so why are these issues even relevant?

If the United States is a plutocracy and Ukraine is a plutocracy, then is any nominally democratic nation on this planet not a plutocracy? If we cannot point to a single functioning democracy which is not an plutocracy, then that doesn't really suggest that every bad thing on earth is the fault of the US government, it suggests that capitalism and democracy are to some degree mutually antagonistic irrespective of context.

You can explain why the US and its foreign policy is bad all day, and I don't think anyone particularly disagrees, but it means nothing if you cannot explain why the alternative, increased Russian global influence, is actually better, and not just (as it certainly appears when we look at the effects of Russian political influence in Europe) less democracy, more Nazis and more capitalism.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxkowDFQOqbRLZH725wKHvViR6pkra4mlw

Um...

Sorry, I'm not a military expert, but I've seen people suggest that the war in Ukraine is an example of tanks now being obsolete. Dunno if I agree, but I don't see this going well for Russia.

 

[Silvanus]

No it's not. You just overvalue its importance. Anyway, see one paragraph above.

I "overvalue" the fact that Zelensky actually had hardly any expenditure?

No, you've massively exaggerated the fact that some rich guy supports him, and have interpreted that to mean he represents "plutocracy". The fact that the actual monetary amounts involved here are minimal is entirely relevant to that: you have zero actual basis for the "they're all the same" reductionism.

You tried to insinuate that Zelensky (who spent a couple million euros) is the equivalent of Clinton spending many billions. That's so outlandishly foolish, it fell apart under scrutiny, so you've yet again withdrawn into trite one-liner responses and snipping out anything people say that undermines the argument.

Do you really think it is so difficult to find examples of all of these among the United States and its 'allies' and vassal states? And do you honestly think the difference you perceive is the result of inclination rather than circumstance?

I don't think it'd be difficult to spew whataboutisms about the US, no; you've shown that quite handily, by doing it since the start.

For these groups, circumstances are overwhelmingly worse in Russia. Much of it is very much the result of inclination-- what, you're going to tell me Kadyrov is forced by 'circumstance' to summarily execute gay people? Putin is forced by 'circumstance' to murder journalists? The military leadership is forced by 'circumstance' to conscript young poor men, lie to them about their intentions, kill them for refusing, and then lie to their parents when they die? The Russian state is forced by 'circumstance' to prevent all unionisation and brutalise anyone who attempts it? Spare me the bootlicking.

 

[Thaluikhain]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxkowDFQOqbRLZH725wKHvViR6pkra4mlw

Um...

Sorry, I'm not a military expert, but I've seen people suggest that the war in Ukraine is an example of tanks now being obsolete. Dunno if I agree, but I don't see this going well for Russia.

The chieftain put a video up where he disagrees with tanks being obsolete. Amongst his arguments is that infantry soldiers are still in use despite being very vulnerable. Russia has lost a lot of those and had scramble around to get replacements but that isn't taken as an argument that footsoldiers are obsolete.

Taking up museum pieces looks like evidence of Russia's failings, not of the concept of tanks failing.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Sorry, I'm not a military expert, but I've seen people suggest that the war in Ukraine is an example of tanks now being obsolete. Dunno if I agree, but I don't see this going well for Russia.

I mean, I think it's been fairly well known for a while that tank armor has generally not kept pace with modern anti-tank weapons, which fundamentally changes the role of tanks. That classic armored warfare ideal of tanks as a spearhead leading the charge doesn't really work when some random guy hiding in a bush can knock out an absurdly expensive tank with a shoulder launched missile. But this problem isn't new, it's been around since the end of world war 2 when man-portable anti-tank weapons started to become really effective, and the solution has always been combined arms. Tanks shouldn't be wandering off alone into areas with dangerous bushes, they need protection and support from other elements.

But again, the problem is that the Russian military hasn't spent money on things that are fundamental to modern warfare. In particular, they haven't trained or developed the capability to use combined arms. We saw this early on with the lack of coordination between the air and ground forces, and I'm not surprised it extends to the armor as well.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Sorry, I'm not a military expert, but I've seen people suggest that the war in Ukraine is an example of tanks now being obsolete. Dunno if I agree, but I don't see this going well for Russia.

A big part of the problem is that the tanks Russia is using are obsolete. (And like Terminal Blue says, even cutting-edge tanks have troubles with modern anti-tank weapons- defensive technology historically lags behind offensive.) This lack of quality equipment also extends to the gear Russia is issuing its troops, like body armor composed of quilted fabric yet claimed to be Kevlar, and first-aid kits that consist only of a couple of bandages and a tourniquet.

 

[Agema]

The chieftain put a video up where he disagrees with tanks being obsolete.

They aren't.

Armies are still based around infantry firing bullets. Whilst there are lots of bullets, armies want armoured vehicles for infantry for speed and bullet protection. As there are lots of armoured vehicles around then vehicles that are very good at destroying other vehicles have obvious utility.

It's well known that the Russian military has a manpower problem, so they've got a disproportionate amount of vehicles. This both means a lot of vehicles to shoot at, and a lack of infantry to screen them properly. The British had the same issue shortly after D-Day in Normandy: they got stuck in terrain which left them with too many tanks and not enough infantry, and using tanks to do what infantry would be better for. The end result was high losses of tanks there too.

 

[Dalisclock]

A big part of the problem is that the tanks Russia is using are obsolete. (And like Terminal Blue says, even cutting-edge tanks have troubles with modern anti-tank weapons- defensive technology historically lags behind offensive.) This lack of quality equipment also extends to the gear Russia is issuing its troops, like body armor composed of quilted fabric yet claimed to be Kevlar, and first-aid kits that consist only of a couple of bandages and a tourniquet.

The Russian Army Is Running Out Of Tanks For The War In Ukraine. These 60-Year-Old T-62s Are Proof.

Russian units increasingly will roll into battle with whatever old and obsolete tanks still are in working order. And that could accelerate the rate of loss as the Ukrainians expend less effort, and fewer missiles and artillery rounds, knocking out geriatric tanks.

www.forbes.com

Apparently the Russians are pulling tanks from the 1960's out of storage, which likely means they're running low on the newer stuff. And yeah, you use what you have, but this feels like they're hitting diminishing returns here because if the "Modern" tanks are taking heavy losses, the early cold war era equipment probably isn't gonna turn the situation around at this point.

And by "Storage", that apparently means "Open air vehicle parks completely exposed to decades of Russian weather". I'm not saying none of them work, but I'm not gonna bet on them just coming out of long term storage and going straight to the field without substantial refurbishment. Unless the Russians are trying to play the "We have more tanks then you have anti-tank missiles" AKA the Zapp Brannigan strategy here, in which case.......yeah.......Good luck with that.

 

[Satinavian]

Problem is that at the moment it seems to work. Throwing everything left at the Donbass to overpower the Ukrainians was certainly risky but having superior numbers there seems to pay off.