|
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. |
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 06:31 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:11 hitthat wrote:On July 30 2024 05:28 a_ch wrote:
whose side is much closer to being fascist. He probably misspelled nazis. And I see, whose foreign politics is closer to which. You will cheat none with your intelectual posturing. Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism. -and I see a person, who despite being active in this topic, after 2 years of the war doesn't know almost nothing outside the standard western propaganda narratives. Quite a pitiful sight, and a big sign of the decline of information freedom in Europe. >>Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism -like, wut? Could you please explain your thought here. At least this one is original. Is for example, NATO a nazist organisation because of its will to continuously expand? NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. No one is forced to join NATO, and lots of countries which might want to join NATO aren't let in. Show nested quote +-of course the classical one: ~1910th Italy, with terror organized by leaders of big industrial groups against professional unions and labourers as a reaction to the the socialist uprisings.
That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. I'll go with the first few sentences on Wikipedia instead, but you could also go with Umberto Ecos definition of Ur-fascism, or whichever else you would like. But use a real definition. Show nested quote +Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. I would say that this fits very, very well unto current Russia. Far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition (hello people falling out of windows) are definitively all very present there. I don't know if Russians believe in a natural social hierarchy or subordination of individuel interests for the perceived good of the nation, but there is also a strong regimentation fo society and the economy there.
>>NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join.
-NATO is a military block formed against USSR, led by the US. I hope you can understand that its expansion automatically increase vulnerability of the countries, who try to be independent from US influence?
>>That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing.
-this is the classical example of fascism, with very clear roles and ideas. The numerous descriptions of fascism due to U. Eco, Dimitrov or Strugatsky are not its definition too.
Btw, the name 'fascism' is of course a reference to the Mussolini's NFP, so a 'fascist regime' is by definition a regime similar to the pre WW-II Italy.
>>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
-half of this fits the modern German society much better than Russian: rise of popularity of AdG, focible suppression of pro-russian media like RT or Compact. Natural social hierarchy, strong regimentation of society and the economy - here you are the champions. Calling the current Russian govt ultranationalist is also out of space.
The thing here is - by trying to apply Eco's characterization you miss the very idea of fascism, which is, first of all, a terroristic oppression of people/workers for the sake of forced industrialization; second - the nationalistic ideology and search for external enemies, needed to justify the oppression.
As a side note - it is easy to see how these two characterizations fit the historical context, without being vague and wordy:
Dimitrov: fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital
Strugatsky: fascism is the dictatorship of nationalists. Accordingly, a fascist is a person who professes (and preaches) the superiority of one nation over others and at the same time an active advocate of the "iron hand", "discipline-order", "hedgehog gloves" and other charms of totalitarianism.
|
Boys, I think they are in a denial stage :O They've been hoping for "Kyiv in 3 days", but got Chechnya x40 and it's gonna get worse for em with time. Not that Ukraine will have easy time, but how else do you survive an invader?
Sometimes I even wonder why some of these ghouls are pretending to have a moral point after countless number of civilian deaths cause by the wannabe russian liberation army (there was a very old dude in Kharkiv of jewish origin who miraculously survived a concentration camp during the WW2, unfortunately, he hasn't survived the russian shell to his apartment), after destroyed dams, occupying Chernobyl and ZNPP to these days, "liberating" settlements by turning those to dust, constant nuclear threat...and yea, I must mention MH17, a series of poisonings and assassinations' across Europe, all of these has a single political root and where know where it comes from
|
On July 30 2024 07:22 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:On July 30 2024 06:31 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:11 hitthat wrote:On July 30 2024 05:28 a_ch wrote:
whose side is much closer to being fascist. He probably misspelled nazis. And I see, whose foreign politics is closer to which. You will cheat none with your intelectual posturing. Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism. -and I see a person, who despite being active in this topic, after 2 years of the war doesn't know almost nothing outside the standard western propaganda narratives. Quite a pitiful sight, and a big sign of the decline of information freedom in Europe. >>Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism -like, wut? Could you please explain your thought here. At least this one is original. Is for example, NATO a nazist organisation because of its will to continuously expand? NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. No one is forced to join NATO, and lots of countries which might want to join NATO aren't let in. -of course the classical one: ~1910th Italy, with terror organized by leaders of big industrial groups against professional unions and labourers as a reaction to the the socialist uprisings.
That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. I'll go with the first few sentences on Wikipedia instead, but you could also go with Umberto Ecos definition of Ur-fascism, or whichever else you would like. But use a real definition. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. I would say that this fits very, very well unto current Russia. Far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition (hello people falling out of windows) are definitively all very present there. I don't know if Russians believe in a natural social hierarchy or subordination of individuel interests for the perceived good of the nation, but there is also a strong regimentation fo society and the economy there. >>NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. -NATO is a military block formed against USSR, led by the US. I hope you can understand that its expansion automatically increase vulnerability of the countries, who try to be independent from US influence? >>That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. -this is the classical example of fascism, with very clear roles and ideas. The numerous descriptions of fascism due to U. Eco, Dimitrov or Strugatsky are not its definition too. Btw, the name 'fascism' is of course a reference to the Mussolini's NFP, so a 'fascist regime' is by definition a regime similar to the pre WW-II Italy. >> Show nested quote +Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. -half of this fits the modern German society much better than Russian: rise of popularity of AdG, focible suppression of pro-russian media like RT or Compact. Natural social hierarchy, strong regimentation of society and the economy - here you are the champions. Calling the current Russian govt ultranationalist is also out of space. The thing here is - by trying to apply Eco's characterization you miss the very idea of fascism, which is, first of all, a terroristic oppression of people/workers for the sake of forced industrialization; second - the nationalistic ideology and search for external enemies, needed to justify the oppression. As a side note - it is easy to see how these two characterizations fit the historical context, without being vague and wordy: Dimitrov: fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital Strugatsky: fascism is the dictatorship of nationalists. Accordingly, a fascist is a person who professes (and preaches) the superiority of one nation over others and at the same time an active advocate of the "iron hand", "discipline-order", "hedgehog gloves" and other charms of totalitarianism.
The fuck is the AdG? And who is supposed to be the strong autoritarian leader in modern Germany? Scholz? Lol.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 07:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 07:22 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:On July 30 2024 06:31 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:11 hitthat wrote:On July 30 2024 05:28 a_ch wrote:
whose side is much closer to being fascist. He probably misspelled nazis. And I see, whose foreign politics is closer to which. You will cheat none with your intelectual posturing. Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism. -and I see a person, who despite being active in this topic, after 2 years of the war doesn't know almost nothing outside the standard western propaganda narratives. Quite a pitiful sight, and a big sign of the decline of information freedom in Europe. >>Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism -like, wut? Could you please explain your thought here. At least this one is original. Is for example, NATO a nazist organisation because of its will to continuously expand? NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. No one is forced to join NATO, and lots of countries which might want to join NATO aren't let in. -of course the classical one: ~1910th Italy, with terror organized by leaders of big industrial groups against professional unions and labourers as a reaction to the the socialist uprisings.
That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. I'll go with the first few sentences on Wikipedia instead, but you could also go with Umberto Ecos definition of Ur-fascism, or whichever else you would like. But use a real definition. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. I would say that this fits very, very well unto current Russia. Far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition (hello people falling out of windows) are definitively all very present there. I don't know if Russians believe in a natural social hierarchy or subordination of individuel interests for the perceived good of the nation, but there is also a strong regimentation fo society and the economy there. >>NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. -NATO is a military block formed against USSR, led by the US. I hope you can understand that its expansion automatically increase vulnerability of the countries, who try to be independent from US influence? >>That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. -this is the classical example of fascism, with very clear roles and ideas. The numerous descriptions of fascism due to U. Eco, Dimitrov or Strugatsky are not its definition too. Btw, the name 'fascism' is of course a reference to the Mussolini's NFP, so a 'fascist regime' is by definition a regime similar to the pre WW-II Italy. >> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. -half of this fits the modern German society much better than Russian: rise of popularity of AdG, focible suppression of pro-russian media like RT or Compact. Natural social hierarchy, strong regimentation of society and the economy - here you are the champions. Calling the current Russian govt ultranationalist is also out of space. The thing here is - by trying to apply Eco's characterization you miss the very idea of fascism, which is, first of all, a terroristic oppression of people/workers for the sake of forced industrialization; second - the nationalistic ideology and search for external enemies, needed to justify the oppression. As a side note - it is easy to see how these two characterizations fit the historical context, without being vague and wordy: Dimitrov: fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital Strugatsky: fascism is the dictatorship of nationalists. Accordingly, a fascist is a person who professes (and preaches) the superiority of one nation over others and at the same time an active advocate of the "iron hand", "discipline-order", "hedgehog gloves" and other charms of totalitarianism. The fuck is the AdG?
-two different spellings mixed in one, my mistake
>>And who is supposed to be the strong autoritarian leader in modern Germany? Scholz? Lol.
-where do you see me stating modern Germany has an authoritarian leader?
|
On July 30 2024 07:22 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:On July 30 2024 06:31 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:11 hitthat wrote:On July 30 2024 05:28 a_ch wrote:
whose side is much closer to being fascist. He probably misspelled nazis. And I see, whose foreign politics is closer to which. You will cheat none with your intelectual posturing. Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism. -and I see a person, who despite being active in this topic, after 2 years of the war doesn't know almost nothing outside the standard western propaganda narratives. Quite a pitiful sight, and a big sign of the decline of information freedom in Europe. >>Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism -like, wut? Could you please explain your thought here. At least this one is original. Is for example, NATO a nazist organisation because of its will to continuously expand? NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. No one is forced to join NATO, and lots of countries which might want to join NATO aren't let in. -of course the classical one: ~1910th Italy, with terror organized by leaders of big industrial groups against professional unions and labourers as a reaction to the the socialist uprisings.
That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. I'll go with the first few sentences on Wikipedia instead, but you could also go with Umberto Ecos definition of Ur-fascism, or whichever else you would like. But use a real definition. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. I would say that this fits very, very well unto current Russia. Far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition (hello people falling out of windows) are definitively all very present there. I don't know if Russians believe in a natural social hierarchy or subordination of individuel interests for the perceived good of the nation, but there is also a strong regimentation fo society and the economy there. >>NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. -NATO is a military block formed against USSR, led by the US. I hope you can understand that its expansion automatically increase vulnerability of the countries, who try to be independent from US influence? >>That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. -this is the classical example of fascism, with very clear roles and ideas. The numerous descriptions of fascism due to U. Eco, Dimitrov or Strugatsky are not its definition too. Btw, the name 'fascism' is of course a reference to the Mussolini's NFP, so a 'fascist regime' is by definition a regime similar to the pre WW-II Italy. >> Show nested quote +Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. -half of this fits the modern German society much better than Russian: rise of popularity of AdG, focible suppression of pro-russian media like RT or Compact. Natural social hierarchy, strong regimentation of society and the economy - here you are the champions. Calling the current Russian govt ultranationalist is also out of space. The thing here is - by trying to apply Eco's characterization you miss the very idea of fascism, which is, first of all, a terroristic oppression of people/workers for the sake of forced industrialization; second - the nationalistic ideology and search for external enemies, needed to justify the oppression. As a side note - it is easy to see how these two characterizations fit the historical context, without being vague and wordy: Dimitrov: fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital Strugatsky: fascism is the dictatorship of nationalists. Accordingly, a fascist is a person who professes (and preaches) the superiority of one nation over others and at the same time an active advocate of the "iron hand", "discipline-order", "hedgehog gloves" and other charms of totalitarianism.
1) Finland and Sweden seemed to do just fine, "resisting US domination" all throughout the cold war without NATO. You know what made them join? Yeah, exactly, nothing the US did...
2) Russians like to bring Dimitrov's definition, but it has a big problem. Being a communist himself, he couldn't help but frame it as somehow being inextricably linked to capital. However, fascism has very little to do with capital as such, and a lot to do with how labor is oppressed in a strict hierarchy for the national good. Capital itself is just a part of the machine, not the goal as he implies.
3) Not sure who Strugatsky is, but that definition is far too broad.
4) I don't entirely agree with your paraphrasing and don't really know why you bothered with all this when above your post there were 2 or 3 perfectly good definitions of fascism that didn't even use Eco's checklist that you take offense to. But even if I don't entirely agree with your rephrasing of the definition, even with that, Russia is fascist according to it, so just accept it?
|
United States41606 Posts
On July 30 2024 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 02:52 WombaT wrote:On July 30 2024 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 28 2024 16:46 a_ch wrote:On July 28 2024 15:03 JoinTheRain wrote:On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote:
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked. Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed. -I hope you can imagine how pathetic this looks from the other side: a poor man, brainwashed to the core, wishing death to the people he never gets to know. Why would anyone care what someone whos life revolves around Reddit upvotes and being a shill for the next new shiny cause says or thinks or does for that matter? Let the dogs bark, no one takes them seriously outside their bubble. Listening to a 40 year old social reject that hasn't had proper exercise in the last decade talk about 'Russians fertilizing the soil', 'a grandma took down a SU-57 with a pickle jar hell yeah!', 'its a 30-1 kill ratio woah! we are winning so hard we need to mobilize 500.000 people to cover our 10k casualties, take that Putin trolls! *pushes glasses up nose*' ;that 100year old sail boat we sunk in the Black Sea 7 months ago was such a win, nothing happened since then, absolutely nothing!'. - Its not even funny, the average joe feels a deep deep pity and sadness for the people these (nafo) dogs are shoving in front of the bullets. They won't stop 'winning' in their minds until the last Ukrainian is dead. Then again, that's a problem the Ukrainians have, not you. EDIT: T-t-the Russian economy is really a goner this time guys, I swear!, not like the other 24 times I said the same thing over the last two years. Not like the China is collapsing for real this time articles I've been smoking for the last 17 years. It's totally true this time guys, I heard it from a guy on Youtube User was temp banned for this post. Man NATO really did a number on you eh? In a more general query sense to the general thread denizens, are Ukraine kind of fucked if the White House switches parties? Add to that, while not necessarily seizing power there are quite a few European countries where parties who aren’t enthusiasts for supporting Ukrainian efforts making gains. It seems to this relatively uneducated observer that even with current commitments maintained, you’re somewhat at an interminable stalemate. If they’re withdrawn it doesn’t look especially pretty Thanks in advance Ukraine is struggling just to maintain the "stalemate". Even with an unforeseen surge in support, there just aren't enough Ukrainians willing to be shipped to the front lines or getting trained well enough when they get pushed there to sustain this. In the context of losing a couple frontline villages recently, Ukrainian commanders are seeing the writing on the wall. Show nested quote +Oleksandr Shyrshyn, the 47th brigade’s deputy battalion commander, confirmed to local media that the villages had been taken. He blamed poor training of troops, low abilities of officers, motivation and inadequate weapons for the setbacks. thehill.comWhen you consider nearly half the country doesn't see any shame in draft dodging, it's unlikely to be something they can fix any time soon. Show nested quote +In a late June poll conducted by the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center, about 46 percent of respondents said there is no shame in being a draft dodger, while 29 percent held the opposite opinion, and 25 percent found it difficult to answer. www.rferl.orgMaybe Ukraine can get some big surge of support somehow that can boost their negotiating position, but otherwise, I'd say their position is pretty much only going to get worse and it'll get less appealing to Russia to settle for part of Ukraine every day it continues.
There is no negotiating position because Russia is not negotiating with them. Everything is being taken from them at gunpoint. Ukraine have nothing to offer Russia and Russia wants nothing Ukraine can give because Russia refuses to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to exist, let alone sit at the table. This is what talks of negotiations fail to understand.
|
On July 30 2024 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 02:52 WombaT wrote:On July 30 2024 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 28 2024 16:46 a_ch wrote:On July 28 2024 15:03 JoinTheRain wrote:On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote:
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked. Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed. -I hope you can imagine how pathetic this looks from the other side: a poor man, brainwashed to the core, wishing death to the people he never gets to know. Why would anyone care what someone whos life revolves around Reddit upvotes and being a shill for the next new shiny cause says or thinks or does for that matter? Let the dogs bark, no one takes them seriously outside their bubble. Listening to a 40 year old social reject that hasn't had proper exercise in the last decade talk about 'Russians fertilizing the soil', 'a grandma took down a SU-57 with a pickle jar hell yeah!', 'its a 30-1 kill ratio woah! we are winning so hard we need to mobilize 500.000 people to cover our 10k casualties, take that Putin trolls! *pushes glasses up nose*' ;that 100year old sail boat we sunk in the Black Sea 7 months ago was such a win, nothing happened since then, absolutely nothing!'. - Its not even funny, the average joe feels a deep deep pity and sadness for the people these (nafo) dogs are shoving in front of the bullets. They won't stop 'winning' in their minds until the last Ukrainian is dead. Then again, that's a problem the Ukrainians have, not you. EDIT: T-t-the Russian economy is really a goner this time guys, I swear!, not like the other 24 times I said the same thing over the last two years. Not like the China is collapsing for real this time articles I've been smoking for the last 17 years. It's totally true this time guys, I heard it from a guy on Youtube User was temp banned for this post. Man NATO really did a number on you eh? In a more general query sense to the general thread denizens, are Ukraine kind of fucked if the White House switches parties? Add to that, while not necessarily seizing power there are quite a few European countries where parties who aren’t enthusiasts for supporting Ukrainian efforts making gains. It seems to this relatively uneducated observer that even with current commitments maintained, you’re somewhat at an interminable stalemate. If they’re withdrawn it doesn’t look especially pretty Thanks in advance Ukraine is struggling just to maintain the "stalemate". Even with an unforeseen surge in support, there just aren't enough Ukrainians willing to be shipped to the front lines or getting trained well enough when they get pushed there to sustain this. In the context of losing a couple frontline villages recently, Ukrainian commanders are seeing the writing on the wall. Show nested quote +Oleksandr Shyrshyn, the 47th brigade’s deputy battalion commander, confirmed to local media that the villages had been taken. He blamed poor training of troops, low abilities of officers, motivation and inadequate weapons for the setbacks. thehill.comWhen you consider nearly half the country doesn't see any shame in draft dodging, it's unlikely to be something they can fix any time soon. Show nested quote +In a late June poll conducted by the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center, about 46 percent of respondents said there is no shame in being a draft dodger, while 29 percent held the opposite opinion, and 25 percent found it difficult to answer. www.rferl.orgMaybe Ukraine can get some big surge of support somehow that can boost their negotiating position, but otherwise, I'd say their position is pretty much only going to get worse and it'll get less appealing to Russia to settle for part of Ukraine every day it continues.
Russia is also struggling to maintain the "statemate". The rate at which they lose man and material is unsustainable and has been for a long time. The only thing that keeps them going is their vast stockpile of soviet material. But that is also not infinite.
The most dangerous thing to Ukraine is the morale of its population and filling the trenches with enough warm bodies.
In terms of material, especially heavy armor, Ukraine's rate of losses balanced against re-supply by western nations is mostly even with gains in some categories. Here, too, morale is everything - though not that of the Ukrainian population but the will of their western benefactors.
Russia is gaining ground, that's true. But with the current pace of their advances, they'll need the rest of the century to complete their conquest.
If Ukraine and its allies can keep their defense up, we'll probably see a shift in the next 2-3 years, potentially earlier. When I said that Russia is taking unsustainable losses, I meant it. They are already though a vast number of their soviet stockpile and production cannot hope to match current expenditure, and that is including their efforts to modernize old stock instead of spending even more labor and stuff to build new pieces from scratch. Once that runs out, so will their offensive efforts.
Even if Ukraine loses a hundred more villages and even small towns. even if Ukrainian commanders express their frustration at the lack of training or the lack of western re-supplies, Russia is eventually going to run out of stuff first.
Ukraine's lifeline and their path to remain independent is the help of the west. This is why Russia is trying so hard to paint a different picture. This is why they are overclaiming Ukrainian losses to the point of absurdity - in the hopes of convincing people that it's hopeless and that they should stop bothering. That's how they have always operated.
This is why we see goons like zeo and their Russian shitposter companions show up here.
And that's why it's so important to oppose them wherever you see them, why it's important to stay informed and keep up the solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 09:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 07:22 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:45 Simberto wrote:On July 30 2024 06:31 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 06:11 hitthat wrote:On July 30 2024 05:28 a_ch wrote:
whose side is much closer to being fascist. He probably misspelled nazis. And I see, whose foreign politics is closer to which. You will cheat none with your intelectual posturing. Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism. -and I see a person, who despite being active in this topic, after 2 years of the war doesn't know almost nothing outside the standard western propaganda narratives. Quite a pitiful sight, and a big sign of the decline of information freedom in Europe. >>Irredentism is the one thing that makes you closer to nazism -like, wut? Could you please explain your thought here. At least this one is original. Is for example, NATO a nazist organisation because of its will to continuously expand? NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. No one is forced to join NATO, and lots of countries which might want to join NATO aren't let in. -of course the classical one: ~1910th Italy, with terror organized by leaders of big industrial groups against professional unions and labourers as a reaction to the the socialist uprisings.
That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. I'll go with the first few sentences on Wikipedia instead, but you could also go with Umberto Ecos definition of Ur-fascism, or whichever else you would like. But use a real definition. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. I would say that this fits very, very well unto current Russia. Far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition (hello people falling out of windows) are definitively all very present there. I don't know if Russians believe in a natural social hierarchy or subordination of individuel interests for the perceived good of the nation, but there is also a strong regimentation fo society and the economy there. >>NATO doesn't have a will to continuously expand. NATO has a will to be able to defend itself, and if other nations want to join and are deemed by NATO to be helpful to the joint defense, then they are allowed to join. -NATO is a military block formed against USSR, led by the US. I hope you can understand that its expansion automatically increase vulnerability of the countries, who try to be independent from US influence? >>That is not a definition, that is an example. Examples and definitions are not the same thing. -this is the classical example of fascism, with very clear roles and ideas. The numerous descriptions of fascism due to U. Eco, Dimitrov or Strugatsky are not its definition too. Btw, the name 'fascism' is of course a reference to the Mussolini's NFP, so a 'fascist regime' is by definition a regime similar to the pre WW-II Italy. >> Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. -half of this fits the modern German society much better than Russian: rise of popularity of AdG, focible suppression of pro-russian media like RT or Compact. Natural social hierarchy, strong regimentation of society and the economy - here you are the champions. Calling the current Russian govt ultranationalist is also out of space. The thing here is - by trying to apply Eco's characterization you miss the very idea of fascism, which is, first of all, a terroristic oppression of people/workers for the sake of forced industrialization; second - the nationalistic ideology and search for external enemies, needed to justify the oppression. As a side note - it is easy to see how these two characterizations fit the historical context, without being vague and wordy: Dimitrov: fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital Strugatsky: fascism is the dictatorship of nationalists. Accordingly, a fascist is a person who professes (and preaches) the superiority of one nation over others and at the same time an active advocate of the "iron hand", "discipline-order", "hedgehog gloves" and other charms of totalitarianism. 1) Finland and Sweden seemed to do just fine, "resisting US domination" all throughout the cold war without NATO. You know what made them join? Yeah, exactly, nothing the US did... 2) Russians like to bring Dimitrov's definition, but it has a big problem. Being a communist himself, he couldn't help but frame it as somehow being inextricably linked to capital. However, fascism has very little to do with capital as such, and a lot to do with how labor is oppressed in a strict hierarchy for the national good. Capital itself is just a part of the machine, not the goal as he implies. 3) Not sure who Strugatsky is, but that definition is far too broad. 4) I don't entirely agree with your paraphrasing and don't really know why you bothered with all this when above your post there were 2 or 3 perfectly good definitions of fascism that didn't even use Eco's checklist that you take offense to. But even if I don't entirely agree with your rephrasing of the definition, even with that, Russia is fascist according to it, so just accept it?
1. what made them join - obviously the position of being US client states.
2. fascism has emerged as a reaction to the communist movement; you should at least know the history of Franko's Spain. Capital is an important part of the scheme, because there are few centers of power in a state. A rephrase usign a more modern slang would be "fascism is the anti-democratic rule of oligarkhs, who use terroristic methods to opress general public, and promote nationalist ideology". Basically it describes the situation when the elites are afraid of losing its position and start using terrorist methods against own people, combined with a promotion nationalistic ideology
3. google helps
4. I don't like Eco's checklist, because it loses the essence of the idea. Here you have modern Germany fitting half of the points in the list, and I think you'd agree with me that it is quite far from a fascist state. All this results in 'fascism' becoming a general swearing, like you use it here.
|
Norway28503 Posts
Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US
-This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
|
Dude, you drink way too much russian propaganda coolaid.
Instead of your weird "brainwashing through media" idea, isn't the much more reasonable interpretation of events that Finland and Sweden saw Russia invade a neighbour in a blatant war of aggression and thought for themselves: "Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
It is true that the european left is sadly a bit more divided, mainly between the left parties which are financed by Putin and thus want "peace", and those who are not.
|
Norway28503 Posts
Sure, which is why I exemplify using two Norwegian far-left parties that I happen to be intimately familiar with. Opinions are not static, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly 2022, has made many Europeans much more critical of Russia and much more willing to be aligned with the US. Different conflicts alter people's opinions in different ways - Europeans became much more critical of the US during the Vietnam war, or more recently Iraq (and to varying degrees during/because of other cold war/post cold war excursions.) Likewise opinions on the USSR/Russia become more negative when you engage in imperialism of your own, whether it is installing puppet regimes that oppress the population in Eastern Europe or invading Afghanistan, or more recently, invading Ukraine.
I'm not really expecting you to be swayed by opposition from staunch pro-american voices that supported the invasion of Iraq, but what we are actually seeing is that even western Europeans with a long history of opposition to the US/NATO and a favorable opinion of socialism (if not the USSR) are becoming favorable towards aligning with the US because it is seen as the lesser of two evils. The reason being that even to people who consume media that tends to criticize the US more than Russia consider the invasion absolutely abhorrent and impossible to defend in any way - much the same way those same people considered the American invasion of Iraq.
|
On July 30 2024 11:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2024 02:52 WombaT wrote:On July 30 2024 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 28 2024 16:46 a_ch wrote:On July 28 2024 15:03 JoinTheRain wrote:On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote:
Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked. Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed. -I hope you can imagine how pathetic this looks from the other side: a poor man, brainwashed to the core, wishing death to the people he never gets to know. Why would anyone care what someone whos life revolves around Reddit upvotes and being a shill for the next new shiny cause says or thinks or does for that matter? Let the dogs bark, no one takes them seriously outside their bubble. Listening to a 40 year old social reject that hasn't had proper exercise in the last decade talk about 'Russians fertilizing the soil', 'a grandma took down a SU-57 with a pickle jar hell yeah!', 'its a 30-1 kill ratio woah! we are winning so hard we need to mobilize 500.000 people to cover our 10k casualties, take that Putin trolls! *pushes glasses up nose*' ;that 100year old sail boat we sunk in the Black Sea 7 months ago was such a win, nothing happened since then, absolutely nothing!'. - Its not even funny, the average joe feels a deep deep pity and sadness for the people these (nafo) dogs are shoving in front of the bullets. They won't stop 'winning' in their minds until the last Ukrainian is dead. Then again, that's a problem the Ukrainians have, not you. EDIT: T-t-the Russian economy is really a goner this time guys, I swear!, not like the other 24 times I said the same thing over the last two years. Not like the China is collapsing for real this time articles I've been smoking for the last 17 years. It's totally true this time guys, I heard it from a guy on Youtube User was temp banned for this post. Man NATO really did a number on you eh? In a more general query sense to the general thread denizens, are Ukraine kind of fucked if the White House switches parties? Add to that, while not necessarily seizing power there are quite a few European countries where parties who aren’t enthusiasts for supporting Ukrainian efforts making gains. It seems to this relatively uneducated observer that even with current commitments maintained, you’re somewhat at an interminable stalemate. If they’re withdrawn it doesn’t look especially pretty Thanks in advance Ukraine is struggling just to maintain the "stalemate". Even with an unforeseen surge in support, there just aren't enough Ukrainians willing to be shipped to the front lines or getting trained well enough when they get pushed there to sustain this. In the context of losing a couple frontline villages recently, Ukrainian commanders are seeing the writing on the wall. Oleksandr Shyrshyn, the 47th brigade’s deputy battalion commander, confirmed to local media that the villages had been taken. He blamed poor training of troops, low abilities of officers, motivation and inadequate weapons for the setbacks. thehill.comWhen you consider nearly half the country doesn't see any shame in draft dodging, it's unlikely to be something they can fix any time soon. In a late June poll conducted by the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center, about 46 percent of respondents said there is no shame in being a draft dodger, while 29 percent held the opposite opinion, and 25 percent found it difficult to answer. www.rferl.orgMaybe Ukraine can get some big surge of support somehow that can boost their negotiating position, but otherwise, I'd say their position is pretty much only going to get worse and it'll get less appealing to Russia to settle for part of Ukraine every day it continues. There is no negotiating position because Russia is not negotiating with them. Everything is being taken from them at gunpoint. Ukraine have nothing to offer Russia and Russia wants nothing Ukraine can give because Russia refuses to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to exist, let alone sit at the table. This is what talks of negotiations fail to understand. While the West is ready and willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, it's increasingly (and understandably) looking like Ukrainians are not. They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
There is increasing talk of peace negotiations with Russia in Ukraine. So far, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always rejected any possible agreements with Russia's current leadership and even issued a decree ruling out talks with President Vladimir Putin. But the situation could be changing. Zelenskyy has even said that Russian representatives should attend the second "peace summit" that Ukraine plans to hold in November.
According to a survey conducted by the Razumkov Center, a Ukrainian think tank, on behalf of the Ukrainian online newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (zn.ua), 44% of Ukrainians in areas behind the frontline believe that it is time to start official talks between Kyiv and Moscow
www.dw.com
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 17:47 Simberto wrote:
Dude, you drink way too much russian propaganda coolaid.
Instead of your weird "brainwashing through media" idea, isn't the much more reasonable interpretation of events that Finland and Sweden saw Russia invade a neighbour in a blatant war of aggression and thought for themselves: "Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
It is true that the european left is sadly a bit more divided, mainly between the left parties which are financed by Putin and thus want "peace", and those who are not.
-you think I am propagandized, I think the same of you.
>>"Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
-hope you understand how shallow this explanation is. Although things like that work perfectly in media, because general public hates to think on the matters that don't bother them directly.
|
On July 30 2024 16:28 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22. >>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense. -of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on) >>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life.
"You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
|
On July 30 2024 18:34 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 17:47 Simberto wrote:
Dude, you drink way too much russian propaganda coolaid.
Instead of your weird "brainwashing through media" idea, isn't the much more reasonable interpretation of events that Finland and Sweden saw Russia invade a neighbour in a blatant war of aggression and thought for themselves: "Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
It is true that the european left is sadly a bit more divided, mainly between the left parties which are financed by Putin and thus want "peace", and those who are not. -you think I am propagandized, I think the same of you. >>"Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too" -hope you understand how shallow this explanation is. Although things like that work perfectly in media, because general public hates to think on the matters that don't bother them directly.
How is it shallow? Russia has a proven tendency to attack its neighbours. They have been doing this shit basically nonstop throughout the 2000s. The Fins also have beein invaded by Russia just in the last century.
The only thing that seems to reliably protect against Russian aggression is NATO membership. Which is why a lot of Russian neighbours and historical targets of Russian imperialism have joined NATO. The baltics, Poland, now Russia and Sweden. This is not some expansionist agenda. It is countries being threatened by Russia joining the big club of people protecting each other from Russia after one of the countries being threatened by Russia was invaded by Russia. There is no need for brainwashing or a conspiracy here.
I know that is hard to understand for a Russian, but your neighbours don't want to be parts of Russia, or puppets of Russia. They all have a history of being ruled by Russia and know that it sucks.
You constantly allude to that deeper understanding of things that you have and everyone else lacks, imply that everyone elses statements are superficial and naive, but refuse to ever elaborate and explicitly explain either the deeper facts or your deeper analysis which leads you to these conclusions. Probably because it tends to get you mocked for spouting Kremlin propaganda.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 18:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Sure, which is why I exemplify using two Norwegian far-left parties that I happen to be intimately familiar with. Opinions are not static, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly 2022, has made many Europeans much more critical of Russia and much more willing to be aligned with the US. Different conflicts alter people's opinions in different ways - Europeans became much more critical of the US during the Vietnam war, or more recently Iraq (and to varying degrees during/because of other cold war/post cold war excursions.) Likewise opinions on the USSR/Russia become more negative when you engage in imperialism of your own, whether it is installing puppet regimes that oppress the population in Eastern Europe or invading Afghanistan, or more recently, invading Ukraine.
I'm not really expecting you to be swayed by opposition from staunch pro-american voices that supported the invasion of Iraq, but what we are actually seeing is that even western Europeans with a long history of opposition to the US/NATO and a favorable opinion of socialism (if not the USSR) are becoming favorable towards aligning with the US because it is seen as the lesser of two evils. The reason being that even to people who consume media that tends to criticize the US more than Russia consider the invasion absolutely abhorrent and impossible to defend in any way - much the same way those same people considered the American invasion of Iraq.
I understand your position. The main difference in my mindset - I've seen an overwhelming evidence of the ability of media to manipulate people in almost every way possible. Therefore I don't believe in a 'democratic' mechanism of making big decisions (in the sence that the majority of population is able to rationally weight the possible options and make a decisions, without being significantly affected). It works fine with smaller issues though, when the cost of involvement overweights the benefit.
In the case of the Norwegian left parties, my guess is the following: any social structure that is doesn't get a regular use, gradually degrades in time. The parties that had tried to keep an independent position amidst USA-USSR cold war have become unneeded after the cold war end. So my guess is that today's left are very different people, with much less ideological position, but a more merkantile
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On July 30 2024 18:38 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 16:28 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22. >>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense. -of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on) >>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones. Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got. Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade. Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive. Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange." 30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text.
The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
|
On July 30 2024 19:04 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2024 18:38 0x64 wrote:On July 30 2024 16:28 a_ch wrote:On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22. >>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense. -of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on) >>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones. Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got. Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade. Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive. Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange." 30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy". -change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
Lol.
|
This entire conversation is people in the thread saying something and a_ch going "no u". It's not russia that is an imperialist aggressor, it's NATO/the west. It's not russia that is undemocratic and authoritarian, it's the US/the west. Sweden and Finland did not join NATO due to russia's actions, it was due to US/the west's actions. On and on and on. Nothing is ever russia's fault in a_ch's world. And then he goes and says we are the ones who are the bainwashed propaganda zombies. Maybe to some extent we are (since no one is immune to propaganda), but so are you, and very much so, buddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
