|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Croatia9529 Posts
On November 24 2023 00:07 Nezgar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:On November 23 2023 10:50 Nezgar wrote:On November 23 2023 09:29 2Pacalypse- wrote:On November 23 2023 09:05 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 07:58 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 07:52 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 07:46 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 07:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 06:54 iFU.spx wrote:
[quote]
Try to not:
1. Split everything in binary system: good or bad.
2. Blame entire countires (i believe it's better to blame actions not objects)
3. Take an argument you don't like as pro-war argument
4. Consider existence of another realities, that differs from your view (i believe it's better to merge everyones realities to see the truth)
I guess then you will understand what he is talking about.
Ad 1. This conflict is as black and white as it gets. You may as well start making a case for why Hitler was a misunderstood fella. Ad 2. Blaming actions is illogical. Blame lies with moral agents, not their actions. What is that even supposed to mean. Ad 3. a_ch is a self-proclaimed supporter of this genocidal war and Russia's fascist regime. Ad 4. There is not such thing as other realities. You're justifying gaslighting. -omg, just how old are you? Don't wanna be offensive, just curious. In responce I can try to answer something inconvenient too I'm 33. Why aren't you fertilizing Ukrainian soil, Vanya? ;-) Thanks. -Cause I'm not Vanya (a_ in my nickname may hint that too), not motivated by money offered there, and also am reserved from a mobilisation as a university professor So you're one of those couch patriots, support murdering innocent people but too much of a coward to get your hands dirty, eh? How do you square away that statement with with what a_ch said here (note the bolded part): On November 23 2023 03:44 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 03:20 Simberto wrote:On November 23 2023 03:01 ZeroByte13 wrote:
1. What is stopping Russia from taking this action?
Government doesn't want to take this action.
2. What is stopping the Russian people from demanding that Russia takes this action?
A lot of Russian people tried to demand this during first weeks (maybe months) of the war.
Almost all of them later either left the country or stopped doing anything publicly.
Take your guess why.
That was also my assumption, but then a_ch said that that is based on me taking propaganda about the russian culture at face value. So i assume that Russians have a different view on this. -don't see any inconsistency here. The population is non-homogenous; there was a significant anti-war movement, which has been very vocal at the beginning of the war. I've been a part of it (signed several open letters against the war as a scientist; got twice warned by our security services for openly discussing some very unpleasant topics in public etc.) I feel like you guys are not really interested in any discussion and would rather just throw insults at each other. I'd prefer if you just don't post then instead of making us all read this shit. It's easy to make up statements or claim anything as your position when you have no relationship with the truth. I mean sure, he could be blatantly lying about that. I don't know, maybe I'm just naive for taking people at their word when they say something like that. I believe he signed several open letters against the war when the war started, which incidentally, would've made a bigger difference (which was still almost zero to be fair) towards ending this war, than anything any of us here did. On November 23 2023 16:00 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 09:29 2Pacalypse- wrote:On November 23 2023 09:05 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 07:58 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 07:52 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 07:46 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 07:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 06:54 iFU.spx wrote:
[quote]
Try to not:
1. Split everything in binary system: good or bad.
2. Blame entire countires (i believe it's better to blame actions not objects)
3. Take an argument you don't like as pro-war argument
4. Consider existence of another realities, that differs from your view (i believe it's better to merge everyones realities to see the truth)
I guess then you will understand what he is talking about.
Ad 1. This conflict is as black and white as it gets. You may as well start making a case for why Hitler was a misunderstood fella. Ad 2. Blaming actions is illogical. Blame lies with moral agents, not their actions. What is that even supposed to mean. Ad 3. a_ch is a self-proclaimed supporter of this genocidal war and Russia's fascist regime. Ad 4. There is not such thing as other realities. You're justifying gaslighting. -omg, just how old are you? Don't wanna be offensive, just curious. In responce I can try to answer something inconvenient too I'm 33. Why aren't you fertilizing Ukrainian soil, Vanya? ;-) Thanks. -Cause I'm not Vanya (a_ in my nickname may hint that too), not motivated by money offered there, and also am reserved from a mobilisation as a university professor So you're one of those couch patriots, support murdering innocent people but too much of a coward to get your hands dirty, eh? How do you square away that statement with with what a_ch said here (note the bolded part): On November 23 2023 03:44 a_ch wrote:On November 23 2023 03:20 Simberto wrote:On November 23 2023 03:01 ZeroByte13 wrote:
1. What is stopping Russia from taking this action?
Government doesn't want to take this action.
2. What is stopping the Russian people from demanding that Russia takes this action?
A lot of Russian people tried to demand this during first weeks (maybe months) of the war.
Almost all of them later either left the country or stopped doing anything publicly.
Take your guess why.
That was also my assumption, but then a_ch said that that is based on me taking propaganda about the russian culture at face value. So i assume that Russians have a different view on this. -don't see any inconsistency here. The population is non-homogenous; there was a significant anti-war movement, which has been very vocal at the beginning of the war. I've been a part of it (signed several open letters against the war as a scientist; got twice warned by our security services for openly discussing some very unpleasant topics in public etc.) I feel like you guys are not really interested in any discussion and would rather just throw insults at each other. I'd prefer if you just don't post then instead of making us all read this shit. Unlike you I am familiar with his posting history in this thread. I know that he (1) is smart enough to know exactly what this war is (he's a STEM researcher with an access to independent media, fluent in English) and (2) that he supports this genocidal war regardless. You seem incapable of appreciating the context of the posts you read and going deeper than 1-2 posts... I don't know, I've been following this thread pretty closely and I while I agree with your (1) statement, I don't quite remember (2) as being true. You have to understand that voicing opinions that aren't aligned with mainstream western narrative does not equal "support" for the war. E.g. all of these statements can be true at the same time (note: I'm not voicing my own opinion here, just giving an example): Statement 1: I think Euromaidan was a catalyst for an illegal coup which overthrew democratically elected government Statement 2: I think DPR/LPR had a high percentage of Russian-leaning populace which were subjugated in various ways post-2014 Statement 3: I don't support this war and I wish it never started; I also wish it ends as soon as possible and hope people stop dying So I feel like we need to be more clear with our language when discussing things. You say a_ch "supports" this war; can you clarify in which way do you think he "supports" this war exactly? Maybe we're just operating with different definitions of the word "support" here. You perhaps think that if someone says even one thing that is official position of the Russian government (i.e. Russian propaganda), that they immediately want to kill everyone on the other side? Correct me if I'm wrong please. Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. Well, nothing that zeo writes advances the discussion either since he is little more than a Russian mouthpiece that plays gotcha games while trying to deflect or misinform. Yet you continuously defend these people and seemingly exclusively go after anyone who attacks them.
Your first sentence is a perfect example of an extremely vague statement that is very hard to reply to. It would be much easier if I could see some direct examples of things you're talking about. Just so we can eliminate as much confusion as possible. I've read plenty of zeo's posts that had more than enough information in them to advance the discussion (see just two examples below). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's a perfect poster or anything; plenty of his posts serve no other purpose than to just incite a reaction from people.
Also, I'm not continuously defending "these" people. All I'm defending is having a range of perspectives in here. Even perspectives I don't agree with. The day this forum turns into an echo chamber where everyone parrots the same opinion, is the day I lose any kind of value of reading it. Even if it's the opinion I agree with. And as a moderator, this is something I'm striving towards.
On November 24 2023 00:07 Nezgar wrote:
The problem is that you will never get clear statements from these people. a_ch said that he wrote open letters against the war, yet if you ask him to make a statement that he does not support the war and that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, you will not get anything of the sort. zeo will profess his deep sympathies for the Ukrainian people and their suffering, yet if you ask him to condemn the Russian bombing of civilian infrastructure, you will get no such thing.
This seems to be a common refrain, but recently I asked zeo directly to clarify something, twice, and he did so in a long form post:
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=619#12379
https://tl.net/forum/general/587060-russo-ukrainian-war-thread?page=620#12383
So again, I just don't see it. Have you tried asking them a direct question in a non-snarky and genuine way? You might be surprised how willing people are at discussing things in good faith when they don't feel like being attacked by the other side. Demanding someone to make a statement about anything is definitely the wrong way to go about it. If you asked me to make a statement that the sky is blue, I would be hesitant too because I would think you had an ulterior motive.
On November 24 2023 00:07 Nezgar wrote:
Because their entire position is based on dishonesty. That is why arguing with them is so pointless. And you should really know that by now since we are having the same conversation about this topic time and time again. Yet here we are, years later still wondering whether zeo and his ilk REALLY support the war or not, and what "support" actually means as if semantics were the reason why we cannot find a common ground on this topic.
This is the first time I'm having this discussion.
And I think the semantics really matter. Or more precisely, the intentions really matter. Because if you imbue a quality into someone based on your interpretation of what they said, when they didn't really mean what you think they meant, the communication falls apart.
|
On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently.
It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them.
I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off.
|
Croatia9529 Posts
On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. I won't bother answering the rest of your post.
Well okay then. Good talk.
|
On November 23 2023 00:25 a_ch wrote:
And a lot of the people here, who've been neutral\anti-war at the beginning has now become kinda "ok, since were now deep in this, there's no other option than to win" for a number of reasons.
With number one being your r-word sinking cost falacy and national so-called pride that would not accept defeat in war, no matter rightfull or not, against your former province.
|
United States43483 Posts
There’s also been an awful lot of propaganda thrown at the Russian people. It’s not that weird that he’s “at first I was against the war but after two years of non stop exposure to media telling me now necessary it was I’m beginning to see it differently”. Propaganda works. That’s why they do it. He knows rationally that his government lies, and it lies shamelessly about everything. And yet he still finds himself repeating its lies about the suppression of Russian speakers, even as the Russian soldiers arrest teachers speaking Ukrainian at schools in Russian occupied Ukraine.
You can be smart and still fall victim to this stuff.
|
On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off.
There seems to be a prevailance of the use of the term 'bad faith argument' by some posters here, though its being used like a buzz word so just to be clear: people that use that argument here believe that 'this conflict is as black and white as it gets. I'm right, you are wrong and anyone stating anything different to what I believe is automatically arguing in bad faith. Because, how can anyone think differently than me on this subject? That person is wrong by default and knows it'. Would this be correct?
Also I think you are confused about who can be clasified as a Nazi/fascist here. You have one side openly praising Nazi collaborators and fascists at a state level, a country that became a Mecca for neo-Nazi groups from around the globe whose soldiers are pictured daily giving Nazi salutes and wearing Nazi related insignias.
And the other side citing post WW2 obligations for denazification and upholding the results of WW2 in Europe.
I get that its become a meme by this point but you really can't come up with anything better and 'everything I dont like is a Nazi'? Cant you come up with a title like Putinist or something? I mean in the future people are going to look back at this period and coin terms ect about what we are living through now and they won't say Nazis or fascists. The Nazis were Nazis, they were probably called Napoleonic or something by contemporaries but they obviously were not.
Its got me searching for what the Nazis were compared to by contemporaries and I cound not find anything. If anyone has some resorces on this subject I would be grateful.
|
On November 24 2023 22:45 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off. There seems to be a prevailance of the use of the term 'bad faith argument' by some posters here, though its being used like a buzz word so just to be clear: people that use that argument here believe that 'this conflict is as black and white as it gets. I'm right, you are wrong and anyone stating anything different to what I believe is automatically arguing in bad faith. Because, how can anyone think differently than me on this subject? That person is wrong by default and knows it'. Would this be correct? Also I think you are confused about who can be clasified as a Nazi/fascist here. You have one side openly praising Nazi collaborators and fascists at a state level, a country that became a Mecca for neo-Nazi groups from around the globe whose soldiers are pictured daily giving Nazi salutes and wearing Nazi related insignias. And the other side citing post WW2 obligations for denazification and upholding the results of WW2 in Europe. I get that its become a meme by this point but you really can't come up with anything better and 'everything I dont like is a Nazi'? Cant you come up with a title like Putinist or something? I mean in the future people are going to look back at this period and coin terms ect about what we are living through now and they won't say Nazis or fascists. The Nazis were Nazis, they were probably called Napoleonic or something by contemporaries but they obviously were not. Its got me searching for what the Nazis were compared to by contemporaries and I cound not find anything. If anyone has some resorces on this subject I would be grateful.
Putins Russia is pretty fascist by basically any definition. It is also currently fighting an aggressive war for territorial expansion, after pushing for territorial expansion with the thread of war for a while.
It is not weird that they are being compared to nazis, because what they are doing is very close to what the nazis did in the 1930s.
You keep claiming that Ukraine are the nazis, but Ukraine isn't actually attacking any neighbours in a genocidal war currently. They actually had real elections (before the war started). They don't have an eternal leader in control of everything in the state.
|
United States43483 Posts
On November 24 2023 22:45 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off. There seems to be a prevailance of the use of the term 'bad faith argument' by some posters here, though its being used like a buzz word so just to be clear: people that use that argument here believe that 'this conflict is as black and white as it gets. I'm right, you are wrong and anyone stating anything different to what I believe is automatically arguing in bad faith. Because, how can anyone think differently than me on this subject? That person is wrong by default and knows it'. Would this be correct? Also I think you are confused about who can be clasified as a Nazi/fascist here. You have one side openly praising Nazi collaborators and fascists at a state level, a country that became a Mecca for neo-Nazi groups from around the globe whose soldiers are pictured daily giving Nazi salutes and wearing Nazi related insignias. And the other side citing post WW2 obligations for denazification and upholding the results of WW2 in Europe. I get that its become a meme by this point but you really can't come up with anything better and 'everything I dont like is a Nazi'? Cant you come up with a title like Putinist or something? I mean in the future people are going to look back at this period and coin terms ect about what we are living through now and they won't say Nazis or fascists. The Nazis were Nazis, they were probably called Napoleonic or something by contemporaries but they obviously were not. Its got me searching for what the Nazis were compared to by contemporaries and I cound not find anything. If anyone has some resorces on this subject I would be grateful.
They are Nazis and you're a Nazi sympathizer. We know exactly what the word means. We also know exactly what you are. We're not being hyperbolic. We're not misspeaking. It's a simple statement of fact. You're cheerleading for a genocidal dictatorial regime led by a Fuhrer bent on creating lebensraum through ethnic cleansing Ukraine.
Also people would take your unconvincing bleating about denazification a lot more seriously if you weren't on the same side as these guys.
|
Since March 22' the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has increased 10 years.Now the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is 43 years old.
https://www.businessinsider.com/average-age-ukrainian-soldier-43-amid-personnel-problems-2023-11As countless casualties have hampered Ukraine's forces, the average age of a soldier in the country is currently around 43 years old, Time magazine reported last week.That average is up by nearly 10 years from March 2022, one month after the war began, when the average age of a Ukrainian soldier was between 30 and 35 years old, according to FT.
"They're grown men now, and they aren't that healthy to begin with," a close aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Time. "This is Ukraine. Not Scandinavia." As American lawmakers squabble over whether to continue funding Ukraine, however, the country's personnel problems may be more dire than a lack of equipment. Even if the US were to provide Ukraine with all the weapons it promised, a Zelenskyy aide told Time, Ukraine simply doesn't "have the men to use them."
|
United States43483 Posts
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now.
|
On November 24 2023 22:45 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off. There seems to be a prevailance of the use of the term 'bad faith argument' by some posters here, though its being used like a buzz word so just to be clear: people that use that argument here believe that 'this conflict is as black and white as it gets. I'm right, you are wrong and anyone stating anything different to what I believe is automatically arguing in bad faith. Because, how can anyone think differently than me on this subject? That person is wrong by default and knows it'. Would this be correct? Also I think you are confused about who can be clasified as a Nazi/fascist here. You have one side openly praising Nazi collaborators and fascists at a state level, a country that became a Mecca for neo-Nazi groups from around the globe whose soldiers are pictured daily giving Nazi salutes and wearing Nazi related insignias. And the other side citing post WW2 obligations for denazification and upholding the results of WW2 in Europe. I get that its become a meme by this point but you really can't come up with anything better and 'everything I dont like is a Nazi'? Cant you come up with a title like Putinist or something? I mean in the future people are going to look back at this period and coin terms ect about what we are living through now and they won't say Nazis or fascists. The Nazis were Nazis, they were probably called Napoleonic or something by contemporaries but they obviously were not. Its got me searching for what the Nazis were compared to by contemporaries and I cound not find anything. If anyone has some resorces on this subject I would be grateful.
The term is fascist. Well, putinist and fascist are pretty interchangeable.
"everything I don't like is a nazi" is exactly what you're doing when you reduce every Ukrainian who wanted to break free from Russian influence and corruption and closer ties with the EU to a "violent nazi thug".
It seems that in your universe Biden and the pro-EU / pro-nazi Kiev regime are holding the rest of Ukraine hostage and having reluctant Ukrainians die en masse in order to stop "denazification". When you have a corrupt government, propped up by the west, trying to lead an apathetic population with no sense of national identity or will to fight in a war against an enemy that has strong cultural influence in the region, you get what happened in Afghanistan when the US pulled out. Whereas Ukraine has fought for their sovereignty, seemingly against all odds, for ten years and counting.
This nazi talk is completely irrelevant. Russia doesn't give a fuck about nazis. See Kwark's post above. Russia was cool with nazis in the 30's until nazis attacked them. Russia released Azov leaders - supposedly the worst type of nazi there is - they had as POWs. Russia's incursion into Ukraine in 2014 had nothing to do with nazis and everything to do with recognizing they're about to lose their grip on Ukraine as a buffer state.
The post WW2 obligation was "never again" until Putin decided he's going to do it again. Russia "upholding the results of WW2" as in we must occupy half of Europe? How do you come up with this shit, how are you gonna tell people you're arguing in good faith and characterize devastating half of Ukraine as some sort of noble cause to fulfill an obligation? By your logic Russia should flatten insert country, Serbia for example, to get rid of a bunch of nazis.
|
On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now.
They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact.
|
On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact.
It's not feminism. Women aren't as well suited for frontline duties. Also there's the matter of all the horror stories around Russian treatment of women so even currently serving ones (even medics) carry a grenade with them for "personal use" since it's preferable to being captured by the enemy.
Edit: Let me be clear here. I have nothing against women serving in the military but the matter of fact is that a well-built woman will weight around 60-65kg whereas a man will be around 80-90kg. With all the equipment they have to carry around it makes a pretty big difference if you have to lug around half of your body weight or just one third. Not to mention with the current state of the war there's plenty of trench digging, so not something women are best suited for either.
|
On November 24 2023 22:45 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2023 02:16 maybenexttime wrote:On November 23 2023 23:18 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Also as a side note, I'm not sure why your posts are so aggressive all the time. Even when replying to me, who is mostly aligned with your point of view, you still go into attack mode. It does nothing to advance the discussion and understanding between people, since you put the other person immediately in defense mode. Granted, you're not the only person who's doing this (we all do it sometimes), but you sure do it very frequently. It's pretty simple. If I come across a Nazi who says he initially was against killing the Jews but now he's realized that Hitler actually has got a point, that the Jews had it coming, and continues to spread nasty antisemitic conspiracy theories, I won't be civil with them. I won't bother answering the rest of your post. You can simply read a_ch's posts. There's about a hundred of them, nearly all of them spreading vile anti-Ukrainian propaganda invented by Russia, blaming the West and Ukraine for the war and making excuses for Russia's fascist regime, with countless bad faith arguments to top it off. There seems to be a prevailance of the use of the term 'bad faith argument' by some posters here, though its being used like a buzz word so just to be clear: people that use that argument here believe that 'this conflict is as black and white as it gets. I'm right, you are wrong and anyone stating anything different to what I believe is automatically arguing in bad faith. Because, how can anyone think differently than me on this subject? That person is wrong by default and knows it'. Would this be correct? Also I think you are confused about who can be clasified as a Nazi/fascist here. You have one side openly praising Nazi collaborators and fascists at a state level, a country that became a Mecca for neo-Nazi groups from around the globe whose soldiers are pictured daily giving Nazi salutes and wearing Nazi related insignias. And the other side citing post WW2 obligations for denazification and upholding the results of WW2 in Europe. I get that its become a meme by this point but you really can't come up with anything better and 'everything I dont like is a Nazi'? Cant you come up with a title like Putinist or something? I mean in the future people are going to look back at this period and coin terms ect about what we are living through now and they won't say Nazis or fascists. The Nazis were Nazis, they were probably called Napoleonic or something by contemporaries but they obviously were not. Its got me searching for what the Nazis were compared to by contemporaries and I cound not find anything. If anyone has some resorces on this subject I would be grateful.
Stalin was by far the worst Nazi collaborator in WW2.
And Russia fits any accepted definition of fascism. Here's a bunch of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
And here's a definition of fascism by the Russian Academy of Sciences:
Фашизм — это идеология и практика, утверждающая превосходство и исключительность определенной нации или расы и направленная на разжигание национальной нетерпимости, обоснование дискриминации в отношении представителей других народов, отрицание демократии, установление культа вождя, применение насилия и террора для подавления политических противников и любых форм инакомыслия, оправдания войны как средства решения межгосударственных проблем.
---------------
Fascism is an ideology and practice that asserts the superiority and exclusivity of a particular nation or race and is aimed at inciting national intolerance, justifying discrimination against representatives of other nations, denying democracy, establishing the cult of the leader, using violence and terror to suppress political opponents and any forms of dissent, justifications for war as a means of solving interstate problems.
And I didn't claim Russia was a Nazi regime. I used an analogy to explain why I'm not being civil with genocide cheerleaders.
|
United States43483 Posts
On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact.
What part of my post are you responding to?
In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started.
|
On November 25 2023 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact. What part of my post are you responding to? In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started.
The implication of the "of course" being that Ukraine isn't actually struggling to fill its ranks and this is a typical/expected demographic shift (which legislating drafting women in Ukraine would not be) if I misinterpreted that (and this post), my apologies.
|
United States43483 Posts
On November 25 2023 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 06:21 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact. What part of my post are you responding to? In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started. The implication of the "of course" being that Ukraine isn't actually struggling to fill its ranks and this is a typical/expected demographic shift (which legislating drafting women in Ukraine would not be) if I misinterpreted that (and this post), my apologies.
Of course putting a million men in uniform during wartime is more of a struggle than putting a thousand in uniform during relative peace. I’m really confused by what point you and Nettles think is being made. Is it a simple observation that war looks different to peace? Because if so I think we all already knew that.
|
On November 25 2023 07:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 06:21 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact. What part of my post are you responding to? In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started. The implication of the "of course" being that Ukraine isn't actually struggling to fill its ranks and this is a typical/expected demographic shift (which legislating drafting women in Ukraine would not be) if I misinterpreted that (and this post), my apologies. Of course putting a million men in uniform during wartime is more of a struggle than putting a thousand in uniform during relative peace. I’m really confused by what point you and Nettles think is being made. Is it a simple observation that war looks different to peace? Because if so I think we all already knew that.
While I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next person, Ukraine didn't 1000x their troop numbers so I think that's a bit of a red herring.
You're not confused. The point is that there's increasing signs that Ukraine is struggling to fill its ranks, you disagree with that observation and support that position with hyperbole and your observation about how wartime military demographics expectedly shift from peacetime demographics.
|
United States43483 Posts
On November 25 2023 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 07:12 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 06:21 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact. What part of my post are you responding to? In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started. The implication of the "of course" being that Ukraine isn't actually struggling to fill its ranks and this is a typical/expected demographic shift (which legislating drafting women in Ukraine would not be) if I misinterpreted that (and this post), my apologies. Of course putting a million men in uniform during wartime is more of a struggle than putting a thousand in uniform during relative peace. I’m really confused by what point you and Nettles think is being made. Is it a simple observation that war looks different to peace? Because if so I think we all already knew that. While I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next person, Ukraine didn't 1000x their troop numbers so I think that's a bit of a red herring. You're not confused. The point is that there's increasing signs that Ukraine is struggling to fill its ranks, you disagree with that observation and support that position with hyperbole and your observation about how wartime military demographics expectedly shift from peacetime demographics.
You’re very confused, probably because you didn’t bother to read either the article or my response to it and instead skipped to responding. Incidentally, you should stop doing that.
Nettles linked an article that compared the demographics of the wartime army at the end of October 2023 with the regular army in March 2022. It noted that they were different.
I respond with the “No shit Sherlock, there was a big event that happened during that period”.
I didn’t say that filling uniforms during a war wasn’t harder than at peace. I didn’t say that there wasn’t a struggle. I said the opposite, that of course the demographics changed.
For some reason you really struggled with this. That of course the army you desire in peacetime isn’t the same as the army you accept as necessity in wartime. As if that isn’t as obvious as it is irrelevant.
You’re also really struggling with making it fit a narrative that just isn’t there. You’re attempting to argue that these two data points taken from completely incomparable scenarios can be extrapolated to form a straight line of increasing struggle over time. That’s not how it works. Would you argue that because 60,000,000 years ago dinosaurs dominated earth and today they don’t then logically dinosaurs have been increasingly struggling over the last 60,000,000 years, possibly as a result of US foreign policy and their failure to implement socialism? Probably, but you shouldn’t. Not when there was an incredibly important event right at the time of one of the measurements.
We have two data points. One is the regular peacetime army, the other is the army in a desperate struggle for national existence. Their demographics look different. My hypothesis for the cause of this difference is the existential apocalyptic war forced upon them by Russia right around the time the first data point was measured.
The struggle increased very suddenly and very dramatically around the time it became extremely dangerous to be a Ukrainian soldier and they needed to increase the size of their army 10x. So around March 2022. I’m not saying it didn’t get harder for them to fill ranks, it got much much harder, and it’s evident why.
|
On November 25 2023 08:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2023 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 07:12 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 06:21 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2023 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 25 2023 00:30 KwarK wrote:
In March 22 the Ukrainian army was still largely their regular army so of course it skewed younger then than now. They didn't start drafting women because of feminism. Ukraine is increasingly struggling to fill it's ranks and it doesn't do anyone any good to live in denial of that fact. What part of my post are you responding to? In times of relative peace then your army will be roughly the demographic you're looking for, within budget constraints. In times of war you'll compromise a lot more on that stuff. It's not a complicated premise. In March 2022 it was a smaller professional regular force because the war had literally just started. The implication of the "of course" being that Ukraine isn't actually struggling to fill its ranks and this is a typical/expected demographic shift (which legislating drafting women in Ukraine would not be) if I misinterpreted that (and this post), my apologies. Of course putting a million men in uniform during wartime is more of a struggle than putting a thousand in uniform during relative peace. I’m really confused by what point you and Nettles think is being made. Is it a simple observation that war looks different to peace? Because if so I think we all already knew that. While I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next person, Ukraine didn't 1000x their troop numbers so I think that's a bit of a red herring. You're not confused. The point is that there's increasing signs that Ukraine is struggling to fill its ranks, you disagree with that observation and support that position with hyperbole and your observation about how wartime military demographics expectedly shift from peacetime demographics. You’re very confused, probably because you didn’t bother to read either the article or my response to it and instead skipped to responding. Incidentally, you should stop doing that. Nettles linked an article that compared the demographics of the wartime army at the end of October 2023 with the regular army in March 2022. It noted that they were different. I respond with the “No shit Sherlock, there was a big event that happened during that period”. I didn’t say that filling uniforms during a war wasn’t harder than at peace. I didn’t say that there wasn’t a struggle. I said the opposite, that of course the demographics changed. For some reason you really struggled with this. You’re also really struggling with making it fit a narrative that just isn’t there. You’re attempting to argue that these two data points taken from completely incomparable scenarios can be extrapolated to form a straight line of increasing struggle over time. That’s not how it works. Would you argue that because 60,000,000 years ago dinosaurs dominated earth and today they don’t then logically dinosaurs have been increasingly struggling over the last 60,000,000 years, possibly as a result of US foreign policy and their failure to implement socialism? Probably, but you shouldn’t. Not when there was an incredibly important event right at the time of one of the measurements. We have two data points. One is the regular peacetime army, the other is the army in a desperate struggle for national existence. Their demographics look different. My hypothesis for the cause of this difference is the existential apocalyptic war forced upon them by Russia right around the time the first data point was measured. The struggle increased very suddenly and very dramatically around the time it became extremely dangerous to be a Ukrainian soldier and they needed to increase the size of their army 10x. So around March 2022. I’m not saying it didn’t get harder for them to fill ranks, it got much much harder, and it’s evident why.
No, not confused. I didn't say that you said "filling uniforms during a war wasn't harder than at peace". I said you used extreme hyperbole and that bit of information to counter the observation that there are increasing signs that Ukraine is struggling to fill their ranks which is supported by their recent expansion of their draft legislation, their military skewing decidedly older, reports like this:
Even if the US were to provide Ukraine with all the weapons it promised, a Zelenskyy aide told Time, Ukraine simply doesn't "have the men to use them." etc.
You can reject those as sufficient if you wish. I agree that the context of an existential war certainly clouds what can be reasonably extracted from those bits of information in isolation, but I would disagree on whether it sufficiently accounts for the signs that Ukraine's ability to replenish and rest their troops is waning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
