this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)
World News
37346 readers
997 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So from having had a few exchanges with pro Russian accounts on Lemmy (which seems to be infested with a few very active ones) this is a summary of their arguments:
There's a reason Western Europe focuses on the Nazis in the context of the Holocaust: the Nazis never saw the Western Europeans as a stain on the Earth like they did the Jews and the Slavs. Russians don't need to point to Jews to claim Nazism: they can point directly to the treatment of ethnically Russian Slavs during WW2 and the plans that Nazi Germany had for the eradication of Slavs.
Russia doesn't need to point at how Ukraine treats Jews because to Russia, the Holocaust is dwarfed in societal impact by the issues that motivated Operation Barbarossa. The Russians lost 19 million Russian civilians in the war, why would they care about the Jews?
Nevermind that minorities in China get so many advantages it's actually silly how much affirmative action goes on. Provinces dominated by minorities get significantly more funding per capita and even get loss-leading infrastructure projects like the Tibet and Xinjiang railways. Students from minorities get additional bonuses on gaokao (basically SAT, but imagine if schools didn't look at anything else). Minorities are exempt from family planning policies and get massive interest-free loans for starting businesses. They get proportional representation in government. Hell, there are 55 minority groups in China making up 8% of the population.
In the army? The prevalence of rural populations in the army has been observed AROUND THE WORLD. It's a function of rural communities being rather poor and underserved by governments in general, as well as the lack of economic opportunities that living on a farm provides. In fact, the entire notion of the underserved countryside is what allowed communism to rise in Russia and China.
25% ish of the Russian population live in huts and shit in holes in outhouses for a lack of plumbing (mostly ethnic minorities), all while the ruling Mafia collects yachts and private jets, and launches wars.
I'm not saying there isn't wealth inequality elsewhere, but how about a bit of perspective here. Russia cannot actually conscript too many ethnic Russians or use them as cannon fodder, since that is the only ethnicity in Russia that matters politically, since they are the middle class. Instead they send the colonized people, who happen to be those who shit in holes for a lack of plumbing.
Poor people are overrepresented in the army? No way!
It's a conscript army. They shouldn't be.
Nevermind the fact that it was Russia itself that treated (and keeps treating) its soldiers as cannon fodder
I'd recommend that you read a more insightful commentary on Red Army practices during WW2 rather than following Nazi propaganda from that period. David Glantz' work is particularly insightful.
Either way, those are 19 million civilians. That isn't military dead, that's civilians.
One thing they always forget to mention is the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany in order to partition Poland.
No doubt the Soviets suffered greatly in WW2, and contributed greatly to the allied victory. On the other hand they did not do it alone, and they certainly did not expect to have to fight the Germans at all, at least not at that point.
So? The Great Powers had decided on a policy of appeasement against Nazi Germany. What exactly would you have proposed the USSR do? They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact prior to the war for a reason.
Without the Eastern Front, Europe was lost. Hitler only launched Operation Barbarossa because he thought the Western Front was all but won. Continental Europe was under German control and the UBoats were locking down most of the Atlantic, meanwhile imports of Russian materials was sustaining the German war economy (similarly, imports of American materials was sustaining Japan's war in China and the Pacific)... Of course, it turns out that dividing your forces and taking on Russia in the winter aren't the best ideas, but at the time Germany wanted energy independence and the Caucasus was seen as an easier target than the Middle East (which at the time out produced Romania but wasn't yet the oil superpower it is today).
That's all well and good, but that's never taught at all to Russians and ignored by tankies.
And if you actually read your dumb narrative, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second. You really need to work on your story.
Here's the truth: the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was an authoritarian expansionist nightmare that was happy to get Poland for free. They only fight the Nazis because they had to. And Stalin was a shit strategist.
How were their ethnic Russians fine when this shit was happening?
I'd ask you to cite your sources but this is all sensationalized. Also, nice summary on Bandera, and the Azov fighters everyone keeps shuffling around to parliaments and fundraisers.
If you're all so blood thirsty go put some skin in the game.
Do you believe the Ukrainian army started shelling Donetsk without any reason?
You mean the US backed, far-right led coup?
No I mean armed insurrection taking over government buildings at gunpoint.
I don't know what country you're from but I don't think there are many that are going to keep the kids gloves on for long in such a situation
Yes, when there was insurection in France and the Paris Commune was created, the government sent the army and killed everyone.
It was a bad thing when France did it, and it was also a bad thing when Ukraine did it. Monarchists and fascists are just equally disgusting.
It was an invasion. Invasions are wrong. That should be the beginning and end of the debate.
I mean, there's usually more to say than just that. I don't think no discussion is the answer.
Well then discuss.
What justifies the torture, rape, pillage, kidnapping, Russia has inflicted on Ukraine?
I take it you had to deal with the Hexbears? Idiots.
Such a worthless use of brain cells. Imagine being the product of billions of years of evolution and becoming that.
They said talking on a Lemmy.world post lmfao
That all sounds like brigading emotional nonsense. In fact, there were strong reasons for Russia to invade. It is probably true that Russia was manipulated into invading, it had no choice because of strategic decisions made by Ukraine. It's a shame none of the people you talked to were able to argue the issues sensibly.
Why should Russia strategically be required to invade exactly?
I've never heard a cogent argument on this point.
It's because Russia sees NATO as a threat and wants to take control of Ukraine to keep buffer states on the west side. Also, to keep it'sblack sea fleet safe. Why it happened now and not sooner or later - nobody knows. The official reasoning, of course, is bullshit, just like with any other war. Not the worst one, though.
Most people haven't. We all have a filter bubble.
Here is a first draft, my attempt to provide the missing context. Please leave comments on anything bad or missing you notice. https://lemmy.ml/post/4848742
That is just a list of Russian propaganda points. There is no evidence for any of it.
Ask Jens Stoltenburg. He just fucked up and bragged about how he forced them into it.
Okay, but you didn't actually answer the question, you just pointed to the geopolitical equivalent of blurry sasquatch footage. What's the strategic logic?
M.A.D.
Seems like a really dishonest question when you're pretending not to understand such a basic concept. Unless you want me to believe that you're an idiot or something?
The MAD play would be to stay within their borders and make sure their nukes and delivery systems are all in good working order. Escalating at great cost and with a risk to internal stability isn't very good from a MAD perspective.
Agreed but here we are. They're now arming their fascist puppet state with ATACMS and installing nukes in Finland, which is just eliminating MAD by reducing the time that Russia can respond.
I see what you did there. I don't believe NATO has puppet states.
Fair enough, it's the USA that has the puppet states.
"whatabout America" - "nooo you can't just call me out on hypocrisy, it makes me look bad"
Whataboutism is literally a logical fallacy. We are talking about Russia, so talk about Russia.
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy. There are historical, political, social, and economic reasons things happen, and sometimes it pays to put things in context. Limiting the discussion to the thing happening NOW and only NOW doesn't allow for a better understanding of the events.
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, especially if it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist. You can see based on past events such as the war on terror and endless drone striking of civilians how governments could expect that to be the standard way of operating. That doesn't make it right, only that military intervention has been and continues to be legitimised politically by the international community.
Lol
I didn't realize Ukraine was the most powerful nation to ever exist.
Bruh are you being willfully ignorant about that last point or do you legitimately believe I was saying Ukraine is the most powerful nation to ever exist?
You are implying that this war is somehow orchestrated by the United States, since you are whatabouting that way.
The United States is not a belligerent here. Ukraine is the one getting invaded, and Russia is doing the invading - that is the situation. Every time you whatabout to the US you imply that Ukrainians have no agency and no rights to decide for themselves or defend themselves, or are somehow under the control of Joe Biden or some shit (hint: they aren't - polling in Ukraine is very clear that a large majority want to keep fighting until Russia is gone from their country).
So yeah, "bruh", I'm pointing out that when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, let's talk about Russia and Ukraine. If you want to talk about the wider geostrategic implications of the USA, Europe, NATO, and various other nations providing aid to Ukraine, let's dance:
I suppose your moral grounds aren't shaken by Russia seeking help in North Korea and Iran to continue killing Ukrainian civilians? That is an actual whatabout.
Or perhaps that NATO and the EU are voluntary alliances that nations are free to leave at any moment (and don't want in the case of NATO because of Russian aggression). Very nice, "bruh".
You trolls are so predictable.
The person you replied to, saying whataboutism is a literal fallacy, brought up the fact that whenever anyone criticises the US in relation to current events it gets dismissed as whataboutism. I was making a point that hypocrisy in regards to the US, which is the most powerful nation in the world, helps no one, and only hinders the ability for governments to operate.
I'm not saying Ukrainians have no agency, although they are indebted to the west now, I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good. The fact that it aligns with what the Ukrainian government wants is not necessary.
I don't support killing civilians. I don't support killing conscripted people. I don't support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don't even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in. I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want. That Russia is seeking support is not surprising seeing the west supporting Ukraine, that doesn't make it right, that just makes it predictable.
Using Ukraine how? Spinning it how? As far as I can tell Ukrainians are the ones begging for help. And fighting off an aggressor such as Russia is a moral good as far as I can tell. The thing I'm curious about is the constant "fear of escalation" which means we have been providing aid too slowly.
Of course not. I don't want anyone to die for the ego of a sociopathic cunt. I also want everyone to be happy, live long and prosper, and I also wish we could all ride magic flying unicorns to the infinite ice cream parlor in the Bahamas and never gain weight. There are wishes and there is reality.
This is all nice, except you have to contend with Russia. The people of the region who are not Russia want security and they can't have it with Russia as a neighbor, unless they join an alliance such as NATO, or accept Russian enslavement.
There are precisely two countries who are Russian "allies" in the region - Belorus which is occupied, and Hungary which is run by a similar Mafia, but it's also protected from Russia by NATO and the EU (I really wish they weren't).
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American. They are spinning it as a moral crusade to uphold democracy, just like they do in every other conflict they are involved in. The Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the Ukrainian people are calling for assistance, but also a large proportion of those fighting were conscripted against their will, which shows they do not want to fight. I don't think the fear of escalation is why new weapons are being withheld for so long, if it was they wouldn't be sent in the end. I feel it is just to keep Ukraine and Russia struggling on in stalemate, which devastates the country and leads to more and more death.
Indeed there are wishes and reality. I told you my wishes so you don't think I hope for some 'Ruzzian genocide of all Ukronazis' or something. The reality is a ceasefire and peace talks will save lives. That's why I advocate for it. Where it goes from there is up to Ukraine and Russia, but an all or nothing mentality does not seem to be working for either of them.
Most neighbours are in NATO now, except Ukraine obviously, and those aligned with Russia. I don't feel that two diametrically opposed blocs sharing a big border while propagandising against each other is very stable, especially when you factor in that Russian support apparently includes countries outside the local region, just as with Ukraine.
The fact that Hungary, a nation that is clearly under a right-wing, reactionary government, is a part of NATO shows how little those in NATO actually care for democratic rule. Also the alignment with the Saudis, and the propping up of Israel despite their constant crimes against the local Palestinians. I'm not saying Russia cares about democracy, the results of Yeltsin's rule have clearly crippled them on that front, along with Putin's never ending run. The point is to see that these are two powerful and primarily self interested blocs, and any time they start talk about how they are fighting for good it should raise some eyebrows at least.
The fact that you keep ignoring is that Ukraine is asking for the equipment. NOT asking for any boots on the ground but their own. They are willing to fight this war, they need equipment.
Not just the President of Ukraine or the government, but pretty much the whole of civil society.
I'm not ignoring that, I explicitly stated that the Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the population is asking for aid. That doesn't mean the US isn't using them. There is also a large number of conscripts who are forced to fight, and were either prevented from leaving the country or some basically kidnapped. Those people would definitely benefit from a ceasefire and peace talks.
I am not so sure who is using who at the minute, but sure. What's for certain is that the Russian military, such as it was, is suffering heavy losses, with plenty of busted myths (invulnerable hypersonics, indomitable Armata etc...). It's a good return for the USA helping Ukraine, no doubt about it.
Turns out Russia are a second tier military, who was halted by previous generation US handheld anti-tank weapons and Ukraine are holding their own using second tier equipment for the most part. Turns out when you put loyalists in charge of the military, they might not be so effective. All the bloviating nonsense coming out of the Kremlin turned out to be hot rectal air.
As for a cease fire, sure, so long as Russia doesn't use that time to reinforce their positions in Ukraine. Because they are occupying Ukrainian land. Would it be acceptable to give up that land (because that is effectively what a cease fire would accomplish, no matter what the "talks" determine)?. Russia understands only strength and force, whether they are using it or recieving it. Giving them a chance to strengthen while "talks" are ongoing only strengthens their position. As we talk Ukraine is encroaching on Donetsk airport, occupied since 2014. Continuing to weaken Russia creates a better position to negotiate from.
And Russia reneged on a prior treaty with Ukraine too, so it's not like they are trustworthy. They have already openly stated Ukraine has no right to exist.
Yes the Russian and Ukrainian military, both made of up actual people many of whom were conscripts, are both suffering heavy losses. That means lots of death. I don't see lots of death as being worth finding out the Russians overhyped their weapons.
Second tier military remarks are pretty surprising to me. I don't get why so many people seem shocked that a country that suffered a decade of basically mob rule and ruthless resource extraction by oligarchs after the collapse of the previous political entity doesn't match up to the last remaining superpower that has had no real war or massive disruption on its land since the American Civil War. Sure, in a peer to peer fight, which Russia against Ukraine is, Russia is not doing the equivalent of 'impressively' taking Baghdad in three weeks. It's a completely different war. And yes the corruption obviously plays a huge role in how underwhelming the Russian menace seems to western audiences. I'm not saying this as some massive Russia supporting spiel, I am just constantly surprised by this take.
I imagine in a cease fire before official peace talks both sides would reinforce unfortunately, that tends to be what happens and I'm under no illusion that it isn't. As to whether it would be acceptable to give up this land, it comes down to whatever is agreed to in the peace talks. I personally am all for giving up land if needed, especially land where there was a legitimate civil war happening before the Russian invasion, but it doesn't have to happen that way. Before the inevitable accusations of 'thats literally appeasement, Hitler, Chamberlain, 1939, etc' a podcast called Citations Needed has a good rundown on why that is an often dishonest framing for situations. Episode 89.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-89-how-charges-of-appeasement-equate-diplomacy-with-treason
They also do a good episode on the idea of 'whataboutism' which I wish I had remembered earlier. Episode 66.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-66-whataboutism-the-medias-favorite-rhetorical-shield-against-criticism-of-us-policy
Obviously you don't need to agree with their takes, but it helps to put it into perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion around the Budapest agreement and the Minsk agreements on Lemmy already, so I won't go into that as others are more knowledgeable than me.
You have no right to judge someone for what you yourself are guilty of.
Accusation of whataboutism is just a hiding place for hypocrites.
Pointing out supposed hypocrites is just a hiding place for people uninterested in actual ideas.
Discussion is furthered by pointing out contradictions in positions. Hypocrisy is one of these contradictions.