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.
On May 16 2024 15:06 maybenexttime wrote: There was an assassination on the pro-Russian PM of Slovakia. It turns out that the perpetrator belonged to a pro-Russian paramilitary group. ;o
So let me get this straight: something happens in Slovakia and you ignore Slovakian, Polish and all other European media, you go straight to the propaganda outlet just vomiting out the most rusophobic take on any news.
You have the assassin on camera saying he supports the opposition, litterally 'here is why i did it:' with decades of his career showing what kind of positions he held. Video of him at pro-Ukraine rallies shouting slogans. And you post a propaganda source basing whatever it is they are writting on a tweet of a fake image?
You didn't even start the sentance with 'apparently', or 'allegedly'. No, its a fact now that Putin through mysterious pro-Putin groups that don't exist anymore tried to kill the Slovakian prime minister because, reasons
I have not seen any serious polish media stating anything definite about the assailant's motivation. This is likely because Slovak authorities didn't state anything concrete regarding that yet. I have only seen a lot of speculation and gossip that belongs more to social media than forum.
On May 16 2024 15:06 maybenexttime wrote: There was an assassination on the pro-Russian PM of Slovakia. It turns out that the perpetrator belonged to a pro-Russian paramilitary group. ;o
So let me get this straight: something happens in Slovakia and you ignore Slovakian, Polish and all other European media, you go straight to the propaganda outlet just vomiting out the most rusophobic take on any news.
You have the assassin on camera saying he supports the opposition, litterally 'here is why i did it:' with decades of his career showing what kind of positions he held. Video of him at pro-Ukraine rallies shouting slogans. And you post a propaganda source basing whatever it is they are writting on a tweet of a fake image?
You didn't even start the sentance with 'apparently', or 'allegedly'. No, its a fact now that Putin through mysterious pro-Putin groups that don't exist anymore tried to kill the Slovakian prime minister because, reasons
This post is essentially you going "no u". I hope you understand the irony.
I don't know why you bother to argue with zeo, I simply skip his posts. There is no point to convince him of anything, he sticks to his opinion, you stick to your opinion. You argue with people who are willing to listen, you don't argue with the wall.
You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
I disagree with your post. Nato was always ready to face russia, even when Putin said he can take kyiv in 2 weeks (he said this many years ago) he also said of course russia cannot win against nato (not exact quote obviously).
Also nato never expected ukraine to hold more than a couple months at best against russia.
Appeasing russia was a big mistake, that everyone can agree on, that just made russia more imperialistic, not less, germany and many countries expected cooperation with russia will end their imperialistic ambition and this was proven super wrong. All the baltic countries knew it wouldn't work but no one listened to them.
Zeo loves russia, it's hard to understand why (not really hard to understand when you eat up the russian propaganda reasons of why war is justified), most normal people would think starting wars to expand territory is a terrible way of existence, humanity (especially europe) has had wars for thousands of years and we finaly moved on from this but russia and china still wants to have wars unfortunently.
This can be seen by:
List of countries that support russia's war: north korea, iran, china, serbia and some dictator african countries.
List of countries that are against the war: everyone else
On May 17 2024 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
Well, without war, military becomes an upkeep cost, harder and harder to justify. You need to show your reserves are needed, you need to show that the industry exists for a reason. The thing is that it's extremely hard also to make the decision to increase the military personnel quantity to a level that is required to stop a nation that would be ready to waste their population.
Russia is in "We ain't have nothing to lose"-mode. Who in this forum is in this mode? Not even Zeo ran to Russia to help fight the evil of western country but decided to stay safe within the western bubble.
It's all words until you have to make the choice to stop or help an invasion of another country.
On May 17 2024 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
It's amazing to me how you on one page ask for entry level analysis of very basic concepts in this war, to then extending your "I was ignorant of this topic" into a general "We were ignorant of this topic" a few pages later. This is YOUR lack of understanding, and to extend this ignorance to all of the western world and all communities in a single, sweeping gesture is absolutely misplaced.
Disarmament has nothing to do with democracy either. A lot of the western and especially European cultures have, through harsh lessons and long suffering, learned that cooperation and mutual prosperity is much more beneficial to the people than mutual annihilation every couple decades. It might have been arrogant or naive to think that other nations hold the same values and would like to join in this new model of coexistence. It absolutely was a mistake by the European leaders to assume that this would apply to Russia as well, and understanding Russian history and philosophy, especially those held by the figures in power, would have clued them in that this was not going to work.
You are also conflating Ukraine and the western world and its alliances. Ukraine, not the Baltics, were invaded by Russia. Georgia, not Poland, had their territorial integrity nipped away by Russia. The lesson is that neutrality doesn't work when your neighbor is an imperialistic nation that can, at the very least, be classified as a local power with imperialistic ambitions. And there is a reason why Russia targeted those countries and NOT one of the NATO members. Both conventional and nuclear capabilities are enough of a deterrent, even in their diminished form. That is what the nuclear umbrella is all about.
zeo's presence is a bother because he is a fascist that cheers for ethnic cleansing. Both his presence and his character are thoroughly vile. Imagine how you would feel if this discussion would take place during WW2 and you had an SS apologist in your midst, constantly trying to spread misinformation and openly reveling in the suffering he sees. Imagine how you would think of that person when they try to gaslight the victims of the war.
That you are so enamored with such a character while harping on about the downsides of democracy and how we are better off listening to a fascist does not paint a flattering picture. Believe what you want, listen to whoever you want. But don't be surprised when you get ridiculed for the opinions that form as a result of that. Especially when you preface it with a "I don't understand what is going on, please help me make sense of it". It's okay to not understand some aspects of this topic, especially the the more subtle parts and how they are intertwined. But don't lecture us on it a few pages later.
On May 17 2024 17:19 sertas wrote: Zeo loves russia, it's hard to understand why (not really hard to understand when you eat up the russian propaganda reasons of why war is justified)
Is it really hard to understand? Serbia and Russia have been best buddies for decades, even when it was about Serbia vs Bulgaria ("brotherly nation" to Russia), Russia always picked Serbia's side, so we had to kick Russia out of Dobrudzha region. Serbia is even more pro-Russia than Bulgaria (older generation here is at least). I can see that pattern even in Facebook posts. Of course, this doesn't mean every Serbian is pro-Russia, I'm just saying that odds are you're more likely to encounter a pro-Russian one. Add to that NATO's bombing of Serbia and there you have it, I'm not surprised by their attitude towards Russia at least.
Good to see Ukrainians take some initiative and push the Russians back near Kreminna.
Yeah, this was always going to happen, really. If I, at a very simplified level, wanted to gain an advantage over my enemy, one of the most basic tactics in combat is to retreat, let them overextend into your previous area, and then push them back with superior positioning, logistics and knowledge of the area.
Now, I'm not saying this is what's happening; there doesn't seem to be any indications of it, and Occam's Razor tells us it's unlikely, however while it doesn't seem specifically intended or planned, it is a natural effect of Russia pushing into one specific area like that. It's the same effect we saw last year when Ukraine tried their counter-attack, and through all of WW1, of which this war seems to share an alarming number of similarities to.
From here on out, Russia is going to gain an increased amount of trouble trying to push any further, while Ukraine is going to start having a much easier time pushing back. The only issue is that the further Ukraine pushes back to regain their lost ground, the more they are going to start facing the same issue. Eventually it'll very likely equalize somewhere in the middle, and Russia will have lost an absolute ton of people for practically nothing. Then we do this whole dance again somewhere else, just like WW1. Gaining meters just isn't how this war will be won, and looking at it is only going to give an incredibly mistaken idea of how it's actually progressing.
On May 17 2024 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
I would say something in the same vein, but in some ways completely different to what you are saying. ’The West’ as you put it hasn’t forgotten that war exists, everyone is well aware of the millions of dead and trillions wasted in the middle east since 2001, rather they have forgotten that war can come to them.
Since the start of the Cold War any military action taken by any side anywhere is based on their divine moral right so spread whatever flavor of politics they feel they need to kill people over. ‘Yes, I really did need to burn all those yellow people alive and achieve nothing, I was just trying to spread democracy.’ Yes, everyone needed to die, because you don’t want them to spread capitalist ideas do you?’ ect ect.
And the whole time you had politicians in charge that were well aware of just how fucked the entire planet will be if open conflict between the two sides ever started. You had actual diplomacy, actual negotiations where actual compromises were made and both sides stuck to them. Not to go too long with this post but obviously the power dynamics in World politics got flipped on its head and then there was one.
Unfortunately what they didn’t let go of is their mindset of a divine right to do whatever they want and whatever they want is of course always morally correct, and always the only possible solution. Wherever their intere4sts lie there is of course a need to ‘intervene for humanitarian reasons’ backed up with corporate media campaigns funded by the same people funding the politicians spreading whatever propaganda fits their narrative. Like taking candy from a baby. A secular dictator doesn’t want to play by our rules? Just fund and arm the religious extremists hes been cracking down on for decades, yes the country has become a mad max wasteland of warlords controlling areas of the country and women being sold at slave markets… but our heart was in the right place, we did it for ‘democracy’ (wipes a tear).
A sovereign country not subjugated by the group doing things in the interests of its people cannot be tolerated even the slightest, anything not controlled by the group becomes an existential threat. And who is going to fight these existential threats? Well its the poor people at the door stupid enough to believe they are equals and not cannon fodder. Dangle the plastic beads in front of their face while you goad them into committing suicide against your foes.
Its so easy to do, drinking your soy latte as you tell the poor people to cause chaos and mayhem in their own countries. Its not your country with chaos and mayhem, you’ve never know that. 15Min with the internet is extremely stressful for you. But you can pump 5 billion into NGO’s with the express intent of spreading propaganda and subverting the government of xyz poor country. Its not an armed takeover of parliament with MP’s being forced to vote with guns pointed at them, I’m sure theres like 5 reasons that get debunked immediately why that was absolutely necessary. Elections? Why would we want elections? We know what the people want its the guys pointing guns at the MP’s.
Hey, its not like were going to live with the consequences of that. Its the poor people lol, they can bask in our moral and superior light now. Just like the other poor people waiting at our door there to do our dirty work. But we can’t have actual peace don’t speak nonsense, we hand picked the entire parliament of the country. They exists now to prod, push, pull goad and keep pushing and pushing and undermining the peace process. There can be no compromise, everything has to be exactly how we say we are the supreme morality every deal we’ve signed just fuck it, what are they going to do…
Oh…
Yes yes, I know I got a bit carried away writing, should have made that shorter tbh - but just look at some of the posters above... not like they are going to read any more than a sentence taken out of context to post a low effort gotcha reply. Take the cult guy above, he is such a caricature of an absolutist mindless drone who would stop talking to his family and friends if they didn’t conform to the cult. There is no discourse there, just a black hole of ‘everything I don’t like is fascist reee~~’. And that's just one of them, not posting for people like that anyway.
Throughout the old Ukraine thread I kept saying ‘Ukraine would be much better off as a sovereign country neither pro-NATO or Russia, just fix the crippling corruption pitting both sides against each other so they can steal money’ Ten years later I feel the same way. Of course I’m going to call out the side that destroyed the status quo and set in motion this whole mess, I was against them then and I’m against them now. Maidan will be overturned whether they like it or not, and those responsible will have to face the consequences. Sooner or later they will run out of people to throw in front of the bus.
On May 17 2024 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
It's amazing to me how you on one page ask for entry level analysis of very basic concepts in this war, to then extending your "I was ignorant of this topic" into a general "We were ignorant of this topic" a few pages later. This is YOUR lack of understanding, and to extend this ignorance to all of the western world and all communities in a single, sweeping gesture is absolutely misplaced.
Disarmament has nothing to do with democracy either. A lot of the western and especially European cultures have, through harsh lessons and long suffering, learned that cooperation and mutual prosperity is much more beneficial to the people than mutual annihilation every couple decades. It might have been arrogant or naive to think that other nations hold the same values and would like to join in this new model of coexistence. It absolutely was a mistake by the European leaders to assume that this would apply to Russia as well, and understanding Russian history and philosophy, especially those held by the figures in power, would have clued them in that this was not going to work.
You are also conflating Ukraine and the western world and its alliances. Ukraine, not the Baltics, were invaded by Russia. Georgia, not Poland, had their territorial integrity nipped away by Russia. The lesson is that neutrality doesn't work when your neighbor is an imperialistic nation that can, at the very least, be classified as a local power with imperialistic ambitions. And there is a reason why Russia targeted those countries and NOT one of the NATO members. Both conventional and nuclear capabilities are enough of a deterrent, even in their diminished form. That is what the nuclear umbrella is all about.
zeo's presence is a bother because he is a fascist that cheers for ethnic cleansing. Both his presence and his character are thoroughly vile. Imagine how you would feel if this discussion would take place during WW2 and you had an SS apologist in your midst, constantly trying to spread misinformation and openly reveling in the suffering he sees. Imagine how you would think of that person when they try to gaslight the victims of the war.
That you are so enamored with such a character while harping on about the downsides of democracy and how we are better off listening to a fascist does not paint a flattering picture. Believe what you want, listen to whoever you want. But don't be surprised when you get ridiculed for the opinions that form as a result of that. Especially when you preface it with a "I don't understand what is going on, please help me make sense of it". It's okay to not understand some aspects of this topic, especially the the more subtle parts and how they are intertwined. But don't lecture us on it a few pages later.
There is a lot of good feedback here and I'd like to respond in detail. I apologize for my post coming across as lecturing, condescending, or in some way arrogant. It was not my intention. My post was primarily fueled by shame rather than a sense of superiority. For the record, I completely agreed with Obama with how he responded to Romney. I was the perfect example of this misguided idealism for a large portion of my life.
Disarmament has nothing to do with democracy either. A lot of the western and especially European cultures have, through harsh lessons and long suffering, learned that cooperation and mutual prosperity is much more beneficial to the people than mutual annihilation every couple decades.
It is possible to critique democracy without endorsing the opposite. It would be profoundly arrogant for us to assume the modern western definition of democracy has no room for improvement. We ought to constantly rip ourselves apart and deeply criticize even the smallest details of how our societies function. Similar to how a smart competitor should always be thinking "how can I lose? how can i make sure that doesn't happen?", we ought to be assuming our whole system sucks and improving every small detail we can. That is the best path to improvement. We have no reason to let political systems define our identity. Political ideologies are a tool and tools can be improved.
When idealistic disarmament becomes popular, the popularity does not mean it is wise. I am pointing out that a critical error was made. We can agree that cooperation and mutual prosperity is beneficial while also having the ability to defend ourselves if needed. It would be dishonest to pretend diplomatic disarmament didn't end up spiraling into idealistic, foolish expressions of peacefulness.
It might have been arrogant or naive to think that other nations hold the same values and would like to join in this new model of coexistence. It absolutely was a mistake by the European leaders to assume that this would apply to Russia as well, and understanding Russian history and philosophy, especially those held by the figures in power, would have clued them in that this was not going to work.
Even if we assume it was understandable for many NATO nations to slowly disarm prior to 2014, continuing to pretend war isn't real was irresponsible after Crimea. Here we are, 10 years later. How many NATO nations began brushing the dust off their production and reserves after 2014? How about after 2022? Its completely nuts. Getting back to my original point, it was political suicide for major politicians to allow themselves to be labeled as paranoid warhawks between 2014-2022. Policies pertaining to global safety have been defined by cultural fluctuations rather than expert analysis. We are in a bad situation because of that. We ought to be willing to try to find a way to not repeat that mistake again.
You are also conflating Ukraine and the western world and its alliances. Ukraine, not the Baltics, were invaded by Russia. Georgia, not Poland, had their territorial integrity nipped away by Russia. The lesson is that neutrality doesn't work when your neighbor is an imperialistic nation that can, at the very least, be classified as a local power with imperialistic ambitions. And there is a reason why Russia targeted those countries and NOT one of the NATO members. Both conventional and nuclear capabilities are enough of a deterrent, even in their diminished form. That is what the nuclear umbrella is all about.
"Yes but NATO" does not make disarmament reasonable. A whole lot of the world is non-NATO. Russia has managed to become significantly more powerful without laying a finger on NATO. NATO isn't the only thing that is important to NATO. NATO can suffer enormously from events that do not involve NATO nations. Pretending NATO should only care about NATO is not reasonable even from a purely selfish point of view.
It doesn't matter if NATO labels Russia taking Ukraine as "critical" or "a red line". We don't even need to discuss direct military retaliation. Once Russia took Crimea, it was a moral failing by NATO to not even ramp up production at that point. It was gross negligence. It shouldn't be that we are entirely passive until the moment when we are in some amount of danger. That is irresponsible.
zeo's presence is a bother because he is a fascist that cheers for ethnic cleansing. Both his presence and his character are thoroughly vile. Imagine how you would feel if this discussion would take place during WW2 and you had an SS apologist in your midst, constantly trying to spread misinformation and openly reveling in the suffering he sees. Imagine how you would think of that person when they try to gaslight the victims of the war.
I understand your point, and I agree, but I also want to be clear that understanding how such people think is deeply important. Especially nowadays where media has become more and more of an echo chamber. I would feel differently if zeo was only chest beating. He makes a large effort to support his points. Even if we assume its bullshit, we ought to realize it won't be 100% bullshit. He is important to listen to, even if I generally think he's a bad dude.
That you are so enamored with such a character while harping on about the downsides of democracy and how we are better off listening to a fascist does not paint a flattering picture. Believe what you want, listen to whoever you want. But don't be surprised when you get ridiculed for the opinions that form as a result of that. Especially when you preface it with a "I don't understand what is going on, please help me make sense of it". It's okay to not understand some aspects of this topic, especially the the more subtle parts and how they are intertwined. But don't lecture us on it a few pages later.
It should be possible to point out blatant issues with democracy without being labeled a fascism apologist. I do not want the west to mirror Russia, or China, or Iran, or any such nation. I am proud to be from a nation that prioritizes democracy above absolute safety. I think if we are going to be proud of our love of peace, we should be ashamed of Russia invade Ukraine. We have no incentive to shy away from moral failing by deferring to how NATO is defined or how national borders are defined. A strong faction failed to prevent a weak faction from being deeply victimized. We ought to let ourselves feel guilty for that.
We should swallow this shame, internalize it, and ask ourselves what we did wrong and how we can prevent it in the future. If a long stretch of peace in Europe creates sociological dynamics that end up destroying peace, we should be willing to examine those dynamics. We should ask ourselves how our political systems can be improved to protect us against from our own arrogance in the future.
On May 17 2024 07:53 Mohdoo wrote: You guys let zeo disagreeing with you bother you too much. Even if he has very clear biases and basically an opposite world view of most people here, he provides plenty of relevant information and has been entirely polite in all of my interactions with them.
When zeo says something, you can think its a complete load of shit, and also benefit from hearing what he thinks. And as many of us are realizing right now, it turns out things haven't been as rosy and straightforward in Ukraine as western media has wanted us to believe. The current situation is not purely due to the delayed US aid shipment.
I would argue zeo is a perfect example of how differently "anti-russian" and "pro-russian" nations/people have approached the fact that the cold war never really ended. The west was so caught up in some whimsical fantasy about how war doesn't exist anymore and how no major conflict would ever actually happen again, that they are completely dwarfed by Russia's military output right now.
I think Obama is a golden example of how misguided, arrogant, and masturbatory western perspectives on war have become
Its another golden example of the extreme downsides of democracy. Once the whole philosophy of "we live in a post-war world" began to sprout, it spread rapidly and eventually became a mark of honor. "War hawks" were labeled as brutes or paranoid idiots. It became virtuous to disarm to whatever extent was possible among European nations and even the US to an extent.
Military ramp up capability and general preparedness were treated as optional rather than an important component of lasting peace. Many nations are years away from being able to be what they need to be right now. Its a total mess.
People should reflect on what kind of predictions they made a year ago and ask themselves what they misunderstood before. And above all, people ought to be encouraging their governments to be appropriately prepared for war. When you let excessively "peace loving" protocols run wild, you end up in a position where you are no longer a deterrent to war.
I would say something in the same vein, but in some ways completely different to what you are saying. ’The West’ as you put it hasn’t forgotten that war exists, everyone is well aware of the millions of dead and trillions wasted in the middle east since 2001, rather they have forgotten that war can come to them.
Since the start of the Cold War any military action taken by any side anywhere is based on their divine moral right so spread whatever flavor of politics they feel they need to kill people over. ‘Yes, I really did need to burn all those yellow people alive and achieve nothing, I was just trying to spread democracy.’ Yes, everyone needed to die, because you don’t want them to spread capitalist ideas do you?’ ect ect.
And the whole time you had politicians in charge that were well aware of just how fucked the entire planet will be if open conflict between the two sides ever started. You had actual diplomacy, actual negotiations where actual compromises were made and both sides stuck to them. Not to go too long with this post but obviously the power dynamics in World politics got flipped on its head and then there was one.
Unfortunately what they didn’t let go of is their mindset of a divine right to do whatever they want and whatever they want is of course always morally correct, and always the only possible solution. Wherever their intere4sts lie there is of course a need to ‘intervene for humanitarian reasons’ backed up with corporate media campaigns funded by the same people funding the politicians spreading whatever propaganda fits their narrative. Like taking candy from a baby. A secular dictator doesn’t want to play by our rules? Just fund and arm the religious extremists hes been cracking down on for decades, yes the country has become a mad max wasteland of warlords controlling areas of the country and women being sold at slave markets… but our heart was in the right place, we did it for ‘democracy’ (wipes a tear).
A sovereign country not subjugated by the group doing things in the interests of its people cannot be tolerated even the slightest, anything not controlled by the group becomes an existential threat. And who is going to fight these existential threats? Well its the poor people at the door stupid enough to believe they are equals and not cannon fodder. Dangle the plastic beads in front of their face while you goad them into committing suicide against your foes.
Its so easy to do, drinking your soy latte as you tell the poor people to cause chaos and mayhem in their own countries. Its not your country with chaos and mayhem, you’ve never know that. 15Min with the internet is extremely stressful for you. But you can pump 5 billion into NGO’s with the express intent of spreading propaganda and subverting the government of xyz poor country. Its not an armed takeover of parliament with MP’s being forced to vote with guns pointed at them, I’m sure theres like 5 reasons that get debunked immediately why that was absolutely necessary. Elections? Why would we want elections? We know what the people want its the guys pointing guns at the MP’s.
Hey, its not like were going to live with the consequences of that. Its the poor people lol, they can bask in our moral and superior light now. Just like the other poor people waiting at our door there to do our dirty work. But we can’t have actual peace don’t speak nonsense, we hand picked the entire parliament of the country. They exists now to prod, push, pull goad and keep pushing and pushing and undermining the peace process. There can be no compromise, everything has to be exactly how we say we are the supreme morality every deal we’ve signed just fuck it, what are they going to do…
Oh…
Yes yes, I know I got a bit carried away writing, should have made that shorter tbh - but just look at some of the posters above... not like they are going to read any more than a sentence taken out of context to post a low effort gotcha reply. Take the cult guy above, he is such a caricature of an absolutist mindless drone who would stop talking to his family and friends if they didn’t conform to the cult. There is no discourse there, just a black hole of ‘everything I don’t like is fascist reee~~’. And that's just one of them, not posting for people like that anyway.
Throughout the old Ukraine thread I kept saying ‘Ukraine would be much better off as a sovereign country neither pro-NATO or Russia, just fix the crippling corruption pitting both sides against each other so they can steal money’ Ten years later I feel the same way. Of course I’m going to call out the side that destroyed the status quo and set in motion this whole mess, I was against them then and I’m against them now. Maidan will be overturned whether they like it or not, and those responsible will have to face the consequences. Sooner or later they will run out of people to throw in front of the bus.
Your take is interesting but it raises a few questions for me.
Either you have to believe that Russia themselves never attempt any influence operations anywhere (and certainly not in Ukraine). Or you have to believe that citizens and countries have no agency. Either because active or passive influence and propaganda is akin to mind control or because the world order is "set in stone" and Ukraine clearly belongs to Russia.
The first point is obviously ludicrous. Russia is conducting massive influence campaigns by various means all over the world. From campaigns on the internet, with energy (oil/gas) to economic deals with western Europe, "buying" politicians, promoting orthodox religion, Wagner group in Africa, bases in Syria etc etc.
Mind you, I'm not saying this as a negative. Every single country in the world strives to improve their position and the use of "soft power" is by far preferable to other actions. I'm not denying that western countries also do the same thing, wherever they can. Quite clearly if you don't, you will simply lose your place in the world to those who do.
In Ukraine in particular it's clear that country has been under the influence of Russia for as long as it has existed. There are a lot of passive influencing factors (shared culture, similar language, shared religion, economic ties, history) heavily in favour of Russian influence. There are far fewer passive points of influence for western values, the big one being young Ukrainians looking at other eastern countries in the EU and the effect that has had on the economy and corruption.
Obviously both sides made an effort to influence Ukraine and despite having an overwhelming home field advantage Russia lost and Ukraine slipped away from being a satellite state towards a more neutral position. And the reason they lost is because people in Ukraine have agency to make that choice.
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed and enough disinterest from other parts of the population to not interfere.
Why is this unacceptable to you? Because the world order is set and Ukraine is, and must always be a Russian client state? Then why does Russia (and China) gain influence in Africa in places that were previously in the sphere of European powers? Why does Russia seek to affect change in European and American politics? Because there is not "divine right" to certain territories and countries do what they can.
You rail against the west "causing war" in other countries when ultimately it's the population in those countries themselves who choose to take up arms (against their dictator in Syria for example) since whatever soft influence was used is not mind control. But your fine with Russia invading another country because they lost the same influence battle. So war is bad when the west *maybe* indirectly contributes to it in order to gain influence but it's fine when Russia does directly it for exactly the same reasons.
Why?
Is it because you truly believe it's only the "west" attempting to influence other countries? Is it because you believe other people and smaller countries have no agency at all and are being mind controlled? Or is it because you believe that Russia has some kind of divine right to "rule" certain territories?
It sure sounds like in your ideal word Russia (and maybe China) should be able to do whatever they please and no one else should be able to spread their ideas and beliefs anywhere else.
Also your argument that Ukraine probably regret not just giving in to Russian demands. Likely technically correct in the same way a drunk girl taking a Taxi home and getting raped by the driver regrets not taking the buss. Doesn't mean she was in the wrong. I'm fairly sure that Putin also regrets invading Ukraine because that 6,6% GDP in military spending could have bought a lot of propaganda and soft power instead.
On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed
-you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language
Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint
I am sorry but I talk to Syrian refugees weekly due to volunteering. The situation they describe and the one I also see portrayed in Western media is much worse than the current state for Ukrainian citizens. Which is a nation currently being invaded. Before the invasion the comparison was even more stark in favor of Ukraine.
Ukraine has large issues, I will not argue that. I will strongly argue that Syria has much worse ones. Russia is somewhere in the middle of those two in my eyes.
I don't understand the argument that ukraine is a dictatorship. First of all it's not true and second: what does that have to do with anything?
Russia is by all means far more dictatorial, than Ukraine at any timepoint.
Following that logic Russia should be invaded and their regime should be disposed.
It's not a good reason to start a war.
I'm also confused why all russians suddenly belivie victory is inevitable, afaik the fog of war is still strong, there's momentum for russia sure, but it's impossible to say if it will continue to be so.
On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed
-you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language
Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint
That is some outrageous nonsense. Do you have evidence for any of those claims?
On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed
-you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language
Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint
OK, you think it's justified because "no agency due to orbital mind control lasers*."
EPT
