Ukraine

[Eacaraxe]

Ukraine is not a rich country. It's one of the poorest countries in Europe. It doesn't have amazing natural resources that could be exploited by US companies. It doesn't have a wealthy population who could be a market for US goods. It has been devastated by war and will require many years to rebuild its economy and military capabilities. Nothing the US will ever get back from Ukraine will ever be worth the amount it is going to have to spend to secure a Ukrainian victory, so if your argument is that this is some kind of realpolitik, then where is the incentive. Where is the "real"?

The world's #5 grain-exporting country, with arable land comparatively proof against climate change? Depending on source, sixth or seventh largest proven coal reserves? Fifth-largest iron ore reserve? Tenth-largest titanium ore reserve, sixth in production? Ninth in uranium production?

That country?

I'm unaware of many cases of indigenous activists in the US being snatched off the street and either winding up dead or being indefinately detained in insane asylums without trial. That seems to be alarmingly common in Russia.

You know, those were just the ones we hadn't killed yet.

What I've done is refused to attribute the entire modern direction of Ukraine to that meddling, because doing so is completely absurd.

Literally the entire modern direction of Ukraine as a former member-state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is directly attributable to US meddling. As if it wasn't enough the US irrevocably broke its successor-states through shock therapy and created its current authoritarian oligarchic status which I discussed aplenty up-thread, not one or two pages ago I literally linked a video where NED spokespeople were celebrating the influence the US had in Ukraine's declaration of independence as early as '89.

The last time the United States didn't have its fingerprints all over Ukrainian politics and demography, was ethnic Russian repopulation of the country under Stalin, in the wake of World War II and the fucking Holodomor, and Operation Vistula. Not that you would want to talk about Operation Vistula, being it was the one time in fucking history you could compare literally anyone on the planet to Lavrentiy Beria, and come to a completely sensible conclusion the serial child rapist had the moral high ground.

 

[Silvanus]

Literally the entire modern direction of Ukraine as a former member-state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is directly attributable to US meddling.

Reductionist blather to justify the use of force to implement your preferred policy direction.

As if it wasn't enough the US irrevocably broke its successor-states through shock therapy and created its current authoritarian oligarchic status which I discussed aplenty up-thread, not one or two pages ago I literally linked a video where NED spokespeople were celebrating the influence the US had in Ukraine's declaration of independence as early as '89.

Yes-- influence. The US has enormous influence on almost every country on the planet. To say that because such influence exists means that the entire direction of every such country is simply decided in Washington is simplistic bollocks. You're merely dissatisfied that your preferred direction of policy is dismally unpopular in Ukraine, so you're reaching for excuses to justify implementing it by force.

The US has had a great deal of influence in Ukraine. You know who's had far, far, far more influence on Ukraine? Russia. Russia directly controlled its policy direction for most of the last century. A bought-and-paid Russian stooge ruled Ukraine from 2010 to 2014, after attempting and failing to rig the 2004 election. Russia is the state that has directly threatened Ukraine with obliteration countless times since independence; has created and funded a separatist insurgency that acts on Russian military orders; has sent disguised Russian troops over the border. Russia is the one that has pumped more money than any other state into Ukraine, much of it funding far-right militias.

The last time the United States didn't have its fingerprints all over Ukrainian politics and demography, was ethnic Russian repopulation of the country under Stalin, in the wake of World War II and the fucking Holodomor, and Operation Vistula. Not that you would want to talk about Operation Vistula, being it was the one time in fucking history you could compare literally anyone on the planet to Lavrentiy Beria, and come to a completely sensible conclusion the serial child rapist had the moral high ground.

Thank you for adding some additional reasons for Ukraine to resent the Russian hegemony it has suffered. The same racist, imperial attitude towards Ukraine and Ukrainians has guided Russian leaders' attitudes towards that country for centuries.

 

[Gergar12]

Hopefully we see 100 thousand caskets of Russian soldiers sent to their mothers. If you fuck with NATO someone else will raise your children.

 

[Silvanus]

Hopefully we see 100 thousand caskets of Russian soldiers sent to their mothers. If you fuck with NATO someone else will raise your children.

Dude, a huge number of Russian soldiers are conscripted. They're still working class people being forced against their will to fight other working class people.

Those conscripted and their families do not need to be sent a message. They are not there by choice. Hell, they are already surrendering en masse. They are victims of the ultra-nationalist Russian government as much as anyone.

(Obviously this does not apply to those wilfully participating in war crimes, like those who gunned down civilians in occupied territories or tortured people to death, or the neo-nazi scum of the Wagner Group).

 

[Eacaraxe]

Reductionist blather to justify the use of force to implement your preferred policy direction.

Yes-- influence. The US has enormous influence on almost every country on the planet. To say that because such influence exists means that the entire direction of every such country is simply decided in Washington is simplistic bollocks. You're merely dissatisfied that your preferred direction of policy is dismally unpopular in Ukraine, so you're reaching for excuses to justify implementing it by force.

My "preferred policy direction" as you put it is not dropping a hundred billion dollars in support of Nazi revanchist misadventures attempting to ethnically cleanse a Ukrainian backwater, that's put us on the cusp of a third world war.

If "fuck Nazis" is indeed a "massively unpopular" opinion in Ukraine, I'd strongly suggest an iota of introspection on your part as to who you're really simping for, here. And by all accounts, you're absolutely correct, "fuck Nazis" is a massively unpopular opinion in Ukraine. I'd be remiss if I didn't admit it myself; after all, I'm the one posting videos of giant fuckin' parades celebrating Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, on the national fuckin' holiday dedicated to Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, in the city with giant fuckin' statues of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych.

By the way, I never said "Washington"; I said "the US", of which Chicago and Wall Street is very much a part. Get it right.

The US has had a great deal of influence in Ukraine. You know who's had far, far, far more influence on Ukraine? Russia.

You know who's responsible for the current Russian government and the state of the current Russian government?

Might that, of course, be the country that completely ratfucked Russia and the Warsaw Pact states after the collapse of the Soviet Union, through misinterpreted and mis-implemented shock therapy? The one that propped up Yeltsin despite his whopping 6% approval rating and helped him rig the '96 elections, setting the stage for Putin's ascendancy? The one that created the Russian oligarchy in the first place, by turning a blind eye to billions' worth of embezzlement of IMF monetary aid (that is, of the minority of funding that didn't just go directly to them), and mass misappropriation of vouchers during an inflationary period second only to that of the Depression-era Weimar Republic?

Putin may as well have "Made in America" tattooed across his forehead, baby.

You don't get points for yarbling about "Russian" influence when the US is directly responsible for "Russia" in the first fuckin' place. Even if your relative privation argument had the least bit of relevance.

Russia directly controlled its policy direction for most of the last century.

Ah, now (and only now) that I brought up the Holodomor and Operation Vistula, is Schrodinger's History now in play. Where it appears as if Soviet and Ukrainian history exist in an entangled superposition that only reveals itself when observed through the unique and specific lens of "Russia bad!".

Just, ignore how I specifically pointed that out as the last time the US had its fingerprints all over Ukrainian politics.

Thank you for adding some additional reasons for Ukraine to resent the Russian hegemony it has suffered. The same racist, imperial attitude towards Ukraine and Ukrainians has guided Russian leaders' attitudes towards that country for centuries.

Resentment that led to decisions like "let's jump the border and start ethnically cleansing Poles (and Ukrainian collaborators with Poles, Ukrainians who were part of the Polish resistance, Ukrainians with Polish family members...basically any Ukrainian who just kinda looked at me funny, really...not to mention the usual rogue's gallery of Roma, the disabled, Jews, Communists, trade unionists...) to prove to Hitler we're good Slavs, so when he invades he'll give us independence...

...oh, don't worry about it Mister Hitler, I'll just walk myself into the concentration camp, thank you very much. You see, I'm a good Slav unlike those nasty Communists. I'm just thankful we had the opportunity to clear up this potentially nasty misunderstanding!".

 

[Seanchaidh]

"Flawed democracy" would be a very generous description for Russia at that time

Yes, that was the point.

 

[Silvanus]

My "preferred policy direction" as you put it is not dropping a hundred billion dollars in support of Nazi revanchist misadventures attempting to ethnically cleanse a Ukrainian backwater, that's put us on the cusp of a third world war.

If "fuck Nazis" is indeed a "massively unpopular" opinion in Ukraine, I'd strongly suggest an iota of introspection on your part as to who you're really simping for, here.

No, not "fuck Nazis", because that's not actually the policy direction you're favouring in practice. You'd like to describe it that way, because that casts it in a "good vs evil" light that conveniently matches state propaganda from the invaders aiming to paint the entire country they're invading as worthy of destruction.

What's dismally unpopular in Ukraine is cleaving closer to Russian economic ties as opposed to European economic ties.

By your preferred policy direction, I'm talking about a unilateral withdrawal of defensive support on one side, and the red carpet rolled out for the invading force on the other. Not so much "fuck Nazis", but more "give these specific Nazis exactly what they want: a coerced relationship with Russia".

You know who's responsible for the current Russian government and the state of the current Russian government?

Might that, of course, be the country that completely ratfucked Russia and the Warsaw Pact states after the collapse of the Soviet Union, through misinterpreted and mis-implemented shock therapy? The one that propped up Yeltsin despite his whopping 6% approval rating and helped him rig the '96 elections, setting the stage for Putin's ascendancy? The one that created the Russian oligarchy in the first place, by turning a blind eye to billions' worth of embezzlement of IMF monetary aid (that is, of the minority of funding that didn't just go directly to them), and mass misappropriation of vouchers during an inflationary period second only to that of the Depression-era Weimar Republic?

Putin may as well have "Made in America" tattooed across his forehead, baby.

You don't get points for yarbling about "Russian" influence when the US is directly responsible for "Russia" in the first fuckin' place. Even if your relative privation argument had the least bit of relevance.

Oh, lordy, I didn't think the reductionism could get any more severe, but here we are.

I hate to tell you this, but the siloviki are adults, and are capable of deciding their own political direction. They have not been forced into the pursuit of imperial expansion by the big bad US. They chose that direction-- just as they chose to twist the machinery of the Russian state towards personal enrichment.

It's also not an argument of "relative privation" to point out that if you're whining about one country having undue influence, but also entirely ignoring all other influences (including ones that drastically outweigh it), then you're being simplistic.

Ah, now (and only now) that I brought up the Holodomor and Operation Vistula, is Schrodinger's History now in play. Where it appears as if Soviet and Ukrainian history exist in an entangled superposition that only reveals itself when observed through the unique and specific lens of "Russia bad!".

Just, ignore how I specifically pointed that out as the last time the US had its fingerprints all over Ukrainian politics.

...Ah, so you want to talk about those incidents solely as they relate (very nebulously) to the points you want to make, but you don't want to discuss what they indicate about Russian rulers' racism and imperialism towards Ukrainians. No, sorry: if you want to bring up instances of incredible Russian repression against Ukrainians, you don't get to just skip over the.... uhrm, repression bit.

Resentment that led to decisions like "let's jump the border and start ethnically cleansing Poles (and Ukrainian collaborators with Poles, Ukrainians who were part of the Polish resistance, Ukrainians with Polish family members...basically any Ukrainian who just kinda looked at me funny, really...not to mention the usual rogue's gallery of Roma, the disabled, Jews, Communists, trade unionists...) to prove to Hitler we're good Slavs, so when he invades he'll give us independence...

...oh, don't worry about it Mister Hitler, I'll just walk myself into the concentration camp, thank you very much. You see, I'm a good Slav unlike those nasty Communists. I'm just thankful we had the opportunity to clear up this potentially nasty misunderstanding!".

So in short: the Ukrainian army did these bad things back when, and this is why you don't give a shit if entirely unrelated Ukrainian citizens are targeted en masse by insurgents and Nazi PMCs now. Sins of the father, or just straight-up "generational guilt"?

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, that was the point.

Did you somehow miss the rest of the post, which pointed out just how much worse Russian elections have been than modern Ukrainian ones, meaning that 'flawed democracy' is an apt description for Ukraine but not for Russia?

 

[Gergar12]

Dude, a huge number of Russian soldiers are conscripted. They're still working class people being forced against their will to fight other working class people.

Those conscripted and their families do not need to be sent a message. They are not there by choice. Hell, they are already surrendering en masse. They are victims of the ultra-nationalist Russian government as much as anyone.

(Obviously this does not apply to those wilfully participating in war crimes, like those who gunned down civilians in occupied territories or tortured people to death, or the neo-nazi scum of the Wagner Group).

Hard disagree they still likely support Russian imperialism and supremacy given polling.

 

[Silvanus]

Hard disagree they still likely support Russian imperialism and supremacy given polling.

There is no free opinion polling in Russia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Did you somehow miss the rest of the post, which pointed out just how much worse Russian elections have been than modern Ukrainian ones, meaning that 'flawed democracy' is an apt description for Ukraine but not for Russia?

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true

 

[Terminal Blue]

The world's #5 grain-exporting country, with arable land comparatively proof against climate change? Depending on source, sixth or seventh largest proven coal reserves? Fifth-largest iron ore reserve? Tenth-largest titanium ore reserve, sixth in production? Ninth in uranium production?

That country?

With the exception of arable land, all of those things are also abundant in Antarctica.

Just because a reserve exists doesn't mean it is viable to exploit it. Ukraine, as mentioned, is very poor, and is getting even poorer as its infrastructure is destroyed by Russian bombing campaigns. Exploiting Ukraine's resources would require building the relevant infrastructure pretty much from scratch over many, many years. For that to be worthwhile as an exercise in colonial exploitation, the return on investment needs to be greater not only that the cost of rebuilding an economically devastated country, but also providing the massive amounts of military hardware the Ukrainian military needs in order to win this conflict.

And this is before we even factor in how little this line of propaganda bullshit actually ties in with the other one, because if Ukraine was actually a politically unstable region full of heavily armed Nazis, it would be a really really shitty idea to build expensive resource extraction infrastructure there.

But again, none of this matters if you assume the motivation is not any tangiable expectation of return, but just some timeless, immortal spirit of demonic evil that controls the US government, because that's the kind of rhetoric you end up with you're being fed your talking points by evangelical Christian Nazbols.

 

[Avnger]

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true

Funny because that seems to be strategy you use for all of your posts on this topic.

 

[Silvanus]

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true

Indeed. But thankfully the utterly corrupt nature of Russian elections is pretty much universally recognised, and not under serious dispute. If you want to seriously argue that the Ukrainian elections reach that level, you're gonna be entering new territories of clownery.

 

[Eacaraxe]

No, not "fuck Nazis", because that's not actually the policy direction you're favouring in practice.

I'm sure you'd love for that to be the case.

You'd like to describe it that way, because that casts it in a "good vs evil" light that conveniently matches state propaganda from the invaders aiming to paint the entire country they're invading as worthy of destruction.

Coming from the person who for the past 154 pages has engaged in little but outright Bushian "with us or against us" rhetoric?

And by the way, you're absolutely right about "state propaganda from the invaders".

Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline)

It sounds like the stuff of Kremlin propaganda, but it’s not. Last week Hromadske Radio revealed that Ukraine’s Ministry of Youth and Sports is funding the neo-Nazi group C14 to promote “national patriotic education projects” in the country. On June 8, the Ministry announced that it will award...

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Ukrainian Court Penalizes News Outlet for Calling Far-Right Group ‘Neo-Nazi’

A court in Kyiv ruled in favor of a Ukrainian far-right nationalist group, C14, in its defamation suit against the internet TV station Hromadske.TV after the outlet published a tweet referring to C14 as a “neo-Nazi” group.

www.hrw.org

Preparing for War With Ukraine's Fascist Defenders of Freedom

On the frontlines of the new offensive in eastern Ukraine, the hardcore Azov Battalion is ready for battle with Russia. But they're not fighting for…

foreignpolicy.com

How a Far-Right Battalion Became a Part of Ukraine’s National Guard

The Azov Battalion, which bears a Wolfsangel logo, trains civilians in Ukraine. Here's how a 79-year-old woman holding an AK-47 thrust the group into the spotlight.

www.vice.com

Silence won't make the Ukrainian far right go away

Acting like any mention of the problem feeds Kremlin propaganda is only making it worse.

www.newstatesman.com

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/western-countries-training-far-right-extremists-in-ukraine-report-682411

The Armies of the Right, by Aris Roussinos

Inside Ukraine’s extremist militias

harpers.org

The Balkan Connection: Foreign Fighters and the Far Right in Ukraine - New Lines Institute

Foreign fighters involved in the Ukrainian conflict who have far-right connections pose a credible regional and international security concern. Without proper intervention, these foreign fighters returning home from Ukraine could bolster the already growing far-right movements worldwide.

newlinesinstitute.org

Far-right Extremism as a Threat to Ukrainian Democracy

Far-right extremism represents a threat to the democratic development of Ukrainian society. The brief provides an overview of the activities and influence of the far right, differentiating between groups that express radical ideas but by and large operate within a democratic framework and...

freedomhouse.org

Commentary: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem

As Ukraine's struggle against Russia and its proxies continues, Kiev must also contend with a growing problem behind the front lines: far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval...

www.reuters.com

There’s One Far-Right Movement That Hates the Kremlin

Ukraine’s Azov movement is hostile to Russia, friendly to neo-Nazis, and inspired by France’s new right. It’s not running in Ukraine’s presidential elections because it…

foreignpolicy.com

Now, were I you, I'd be asking approximately who the fuck let Putin borrow Obama's magical time machine, and let him go back in time eight years to single-handedly take over the entirety of Western media to print "Ukraine has a bit of a neo-Nazi problem" articles nonstop that entire time. Because otherwise, are we to understand "Russian propaganda" as "the consensus position of Western media and policy elites before February 24, 2022"?

What's dismally unpopular in Ukraine is cleaving closer to Russian economic ties as opposed to European economic ties.

"Economic", right.

By your preferred policy direction, I'm talking about a unilateral withdrawal of defensive support on one side, and the red carpet rolled out for the invading force on the other. Not so much "fuck Nazis", but more "give these specific Nazis exactly what they want: a coerced relationship with Russia".

And there's that Bushian rhetoric again. "If you don't support arming one belligerent in a conflict, you must support the other's victory". Otherwise known as a "false dichotomy", which we can add to your relative privation and guilt by association/poisoning the well arguments.

They chose that direction-- just as they chose to twist the machinery of the Russian state towards personal enrichment.

So, the rapid establishment of a Russian oligarchy was precisely the intent behind shock therapy. Don't make me go hunting for quotes from Jeffrey Sachs at the time, I'll fuckin' do it.

It's also not an argument of "relative privation" to point out that if you're whining about one country having undue influence, but also entirely ignoring all other influences (including ones that drastically outweigh it), then you're being simplistic.

So I'm now accusing myself of relative privation? Or can we now add "tu quoque" to false dichotomies, relative privation, guilt by association, and poisoning the well.

...Ah, so you want to talk about those incidents solely as they relate (very nebulously) to the points you want to make, but you don't want to discuss what they indicate about Russian rulers' racism and imperialism towards Ukrainians.

No, I'm pointing out what you're not: the actual fucking history of Russo-Ukrainian relations, and the level of US interference in those relations since the end of the Cold War. In fact, I'm pointing out what specifically was the last time Russian imperialism played a role in Ukraine, absent US interference (that'd be the Holodomor and Ukrainian Russification under Stalin).

It really says everything you're trying to sneak Operation Vistula under that banner and hoping I don't notice, considering that was the last time the Soviet Union had to de-Nazify Ukraine. Again, you don't get points for supporting Ukrainian independence, when that independence movement has an eighty-year track record of Nazism.

Remember what I said about Nazis obfuscating their origins and ideology?

No, sorry: if you want to bring up instances of incredible Russian repression against Ukrainians, you don't get to just skip over the.... uhrm, repression bit.

Considering I'm the one actually citing historic Russian repression against Ukrainians, which you -- the supposed #1 supporter of Ukrainian independence and freedom -- haven't done voluntarily for a single fucking moment in 154 pages? I mean, here's receipt #1:



You wanna talk about all this historic repression and pass yourself off as this big Ukraine supporter against Russia, but not once in this entire fucking forum have you ever mentioned the Holodomor -- the internationally-recognized genocide of Ukrainians by the Soviet state under Stalin -- by name?

Bullshit.

So in short: the Ukrainian army did these bad things back when, and this is why you don't give a shit if entirely unrelated Ukrainian citizens are targeted en masse by insurgents and Nazi PMCs now. Sins of the father, or just straight-up "generational guilt"?

"Entirely unrelated". Yeah, people who just happen to fly the same flags, bear the same insignias, say the same shit, and do the same things as the Ukrainian Nazis they openly celebrate, are "entirely unrelated". That is "the Ukrainian army" now, they are the ones who have been trying to ethnically cleanse Donbas for eight years, they will be the ones ethnically cleansing Donbas if they somehow actually win, and they've made zero attempt to hide their intent to do it.

Just because a reserve exists doesn't mean it is viable to exploit it. Ukraine, as mentioned, is very poor, and is getting even poorer as its infrastructure is destroyed by Russian bombing campaigns. Exploiting Ukraine's resources would require building the relevant infrastructure pretty much from scratch over many, many years. For that to be worthwhile as an exercise in colonial exploitation, the return on investment needs to be greater not only that the cost of rebuilding an economically devastated country, but also providing the massive amounts of military hardware the Ukrainian military needs in order to win this conflict.

You mean just like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Do we need a brief historical primer as to how the Soviets ended up in Afghanistan, the geopolitical strategic value of the Afghan invasion to the West, and the long-term impact of that invasion on the Soviet economy? Totally a chapter in history that was closed the day the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, and had no generational repercussions on the West to speak of.

And as a post-script to that thought, sunk cost fallacy and strategic resource denial are in fact phenomena that actually exist as well.

And this is before we even factor in how little this line of propaganda bullshit actually ties in with the other one, because if Ukraine was actually a politically unstable region full of heavily armed Nazis, it would be a really really shitty idea to build expensive resource extraction infrastructure there.

Well, Ukraine hasn't exactly been politically stable since the end of the Cold War, and the Nazis are heavily-armed now thanks to that hundred billion dollars the US spent alone. It's almost as if the idea is to ensure that even if Russia wins, they still lose by being the bag-holder for all that infrastructural damage incurred by the war, and that both Russia and NATO managed to find themselves locked in a "if we can't have it, neither can they" cyclical mentality.

But again, none of this matters if you assume the motivation is not any tangiable expectation of return, but just some timeless, immortal spirit of demonic evil that controls the US government,

I never said it was smart. I said it was realpolitik.

Breaking news, realpolitik is stupid. That whole minor international incident between 1914-1918 should have been indicator enough.

because that's the kind of rhetoric you end up with you're being fed your talking points by evangelical Christian Nazbols.

And again with the guilt by association.

 

[Gergar12]

There is no free opinion polling in Russia.

Ah yes, the lefty defense of people supporting shitty ideas. "They don't actually support it".

 

[Silvanus]

Coming from the person who for the past 154 pages has engaged in little but outright Bushian "with us or against us" rhetoric?

No, "Bushian" is pushing for unilateral invasions-- justified by flimsy (and often racist) caricatures of the people who live in the target country-- to go unopposed. Bush launched several of those himself. It turns out all they needed to do to get you on-side was change the colour of the rosary.

And by the way, you're absolutely right about "state propaganda from the invaders".

[...]

Now, were I you, I'd be asking approximately who the fuck let Putin borrow Obama's magical time machine, and let him go back in time eight years to single-handedly take over the entirety of Western media to print "Ukraine has a bit of a neo-Nazi problem" articles nonstop that entire time. Because otherwise, are we to understand "Russian propaganda" as "the consensus position of Western media and policy elites before February 24, 2022"?

Still conflating "the troubling existence of neo-Nazis in the country" with "the entire country is consumed by neo-Nazism", and extrapolating from that to excuse the mass slaughter of civilians who haven't done a damn thing.

"Economic", right.

And political, and cultural. I'm very sorry that Russia has proven itself, time and again, to be an absolutely fucking abominable partner on the geopolitical scene, completely incapable of holding any bilateral agreement without attempting to coerce or destroy its counterparts. It tends to drive other countries away.

And there's that Bushian rhetoric again. "If you don't support arming one belligerent in a conflict, you must support the other's victory". Otherwise known as a "false dichotomy", which we can add to your relative privation and guilt by association/poisoning the well arguments.

No, it would be perfectly consistent for someone to be against arming one belligerent, and not to support the victory of the other.

You, on the other hand, have not been doing that. You've been vomiting the same Russian state-produced racist caricatures of Ukrainians, and offering endless apologia for the slaughter of civilians, essentially blaming them for deserving it. You couldn't wear your colours any more clearly.

So, the rapid establishment of a Russian oligarchy was precisely the intent behind shock therapy. Don't make me go hunting for quotes from Jeffrey Sachs at the time, I'll fuckin' do it.

The rapid establishment of a Russian oligarchy-- as well as complete cooptation of the state machinery towards personal enrichment, and destruction of any and all democracy-- was indeed the intent behind a cabal of Western profiteers and corporatist hawks. Gleefully embraced by the siloviki and their corporatist partners at home. The latter was not press-ganged into this, and remains in complete control of Russian state policy.

So I'm now accusing myself of relative privation? Or can we now add "tu quoque" to false dichotomies, relative privation, guilt by association, and poisoning the well.

You can keep listing the names of fallacies you don't actually understand all you like.

No, I'm pointing out what you're not: the actual fucking history of Russo-Ukrainian relations, and the level of US interference in those relations since the end of the Cold War. In fact, I'm pointing out what specifically was the last time Russian imperialism played a role in Ukraine, absent US interference (that'd be the Holodomor and Ukrainian Russification under Stalin).

It really says everything you're trying to sneak Operation Vistula under that banner and hoping I don't notice, considering that was the last time the Soviet Union had to de-Nazify Ukraine. Again, you don't get points for supporting Ukrainian independence, when that independence movement has an eighty-year track record of Nazism.

Remember what I said about Nazis obfuscating their origins and ideology?

Blah-de-blah. In essence: you want to discuss Russo-Ukrainian relations while entirely omitting and/or excusing the dramatically unbalanced and ludicrously oppressive nature of that relationship for most of its history. You want to dredge it up for the sake of an ignorant lecture, but don't want to examine it critically.

It's also very fitting that your willingness to accept state propaganda narratives to excuse imperialist/racist military engagements stretches back that far. Forced deportations of communities on the basis of race is all well and good apparently, because you've swallowed the line that they were all Nazis, too!

You remember who actually attempts to punish entire races for perceived evils, right? It's the Nazis.

Considering I'm the one actually citing historic Russian repression against Ukrainians, which you -- the supposed #1 supporter of Ukrainian independence and freedom -- haven't done voluntarily for a single fucking moment in 154 pages? I mean, here's receipt #1:

You wanna talk about all this historic repression and pass yourself off as this big Ukraine supporter against Russia, but not once in this entire fucking forum have you ever mentioned the Holodomor -- the internationally-recognized genocide of Ukrainians by the Soviet state under Stalin -- by name?

Bullshit.

That might be because a conversation about a present-day invasion and war has more pressing and recent updates, and not everybody wants to indulge in your tedious history lessons.

And again with the guilt by association.

What an absolute fucking joke, for you to write this, immediately after excusing the deaths of Ukrainian civilians because some other Ukrainians are neo-Nazis. You're applying guilt-by-association to an entire country as an excuse for slaughter, you laughable hypocrite.

 

[Silvanus]

Ah yes, the lefty defense of people supporting shitty ideas. "They don't actually support it".

You literally have no credible source for whether they support it or not. There isn't one. You can swallow opinion polls taken at the barrel of a gun if you want.

 

[Gergar12]

Poll Shows Putin Ratings Climb Among Russians Since Ukraine Invasion

A new Russian opinion poll shows that President Vladimir Putin has gotten a boost in ratings since the start of the war in Ukraine.

www.google.com

Infographic: Putin Approval Remains High Throughout Ukraine Invasion

This chart shows the share of Russians approving/disapproving of the performance of President Vladimir Putin.

www.google.com

My Country, Right or Wrong: Russian Public Opinion on Ukraine

Rather than consolidating Russian society, the conflict in Ukraine has exacerbated existing divisions on a diverse array of issues, including support for the regime. Put another way, the impression that Putin now has the full support of the Russian public is simply incorrect.

carnegieendowment.org

 

[Gergar12]

You literally have no credible source for whether they support it or not. There isn't one. You can swallow opinion polls taken at the barrel of a gun if you want.

Literally a Trumpist position. Fake polls, polls aren’t true, etc.