I’m just showing these comments I saw earlier, which were interesting. Since it is true, that we’ve been hearing that “Russia is cornered”, since the invasion started. I personally just want this shit to end.

These comments are relating to an article from this week.

I wonder if we will ever know what truly happens on the ground (i.e. when it comes to casualties and many other things)

  • Barbariandude [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who is very much pro-Ukrainian in this conflict and has talked to many Ukrainians, anyone who believes the hype that Russia is days away from collapsing (again) or that Russia’s army is made entirely of uneducated starving peasants who have never held a gun before is taking crazy pills.

    War economies can last a very long time, and this kind of attritional artillery based warfare on both sides (they started with almost the same doctrines) with a contested airspace is an absolute meatgrinder.

      • Barbariandude [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s a few different aspects to this:

        1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we’re going to see a lot more armed conflict. I’ve seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia’s actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the “special military operation” was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He’s been relatively clear in his statements what he’s doing and why. He wants to build a new “Ruskiy Mir”, where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.

        2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it’s nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.

        Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.

        Finally, there’s the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it’s different when you share a language and culture.

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have

          the US has been doing exactly this and setting up puppet states since the end of WWII, has never stopped for a second, and will never stop until they’re forced to. there has never been any other precedent. prior to WWII, colonialism ruled the world.

          US wars since WWII:

          • Korea
          • Vietnam
          • Laos
          • Indonesia
          • Lebanon
          • Cuba/the Bay of Pigs
          • Dominican Republic
          • Korea again
          • Cambodia (on the side of the fucking Khmer Rouge)
          • Lebanon again
          • Grenada
          • Libya
          • Iran
          • Panama
          • Iraq
          • Somalia
          • Bosnia/Serbia
          • Haiti
          • Kosovo
          • Afghanistan
          • Yemen
          • Iraq again
          • expansion of the war in Afghanistan to north-west Pakistan
          • Somalia again
          • Libya again, this time destroying the country so badly that slave markets opened on the streets
          • Uganda
          • Niger
          • Iraq a third time
          • Syria
          • Libya a third time because no shit the Islamic State took up residence, who could have seen this coming

          the idea that there has EVER been a way to prevent wars without nuclear proliferation does not respect the historical record. states seeking to arm themselves with nukes is deeply rational. Cuba was under constant threat of invasion until the Soviet Union deployed nukes there – the US refused to negotiate with the Cuban government. then, once there were nukes, what do you know! suddenly the US will negotiate and will agree not to invade Cuba.

        • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think where you are deviating from the wider hexbear opinion here, and also where I think you’re wrong, is based in a belief that precedents are meaningful first off. Before this war was even thought about, these realities were already clear to all powerful people in the world. Acting from the basic material assumptions (and proving that they are ALREADY true) is not making them true. Not having nukes has been a death sentence to countries (eventually, without socialism) since the moment the first one existed. This war doesn’t impact that nor how rational global actors work. The ability to do “naked aggression” literally never went away, it was just hidden in plain sight with shitty western justifications. Every world power understood this well before this war, and their rational/justifications won’t be impacted. Only new material conditions to work from will arise. Russia’s loss or success actually only would give 1 major new piece of info to the world: is it possible to offensively take in the Imperial core indirectly without the result being total destruction of yourself? That’s what we’re going to learn. We learned from Korea and Vietnam that fighting defensively can work. We learned from middle eastern imperial wars that guerilla struggle is possible to slowly tire out the US.

          We will Also learn small details about fighting and material and weapons and strategy, of course. But the worldwide impact is literally just “is it possible to defend yourself from US interests WITH OFFENSE?”

          Also I agree with CyborgMarx, best case scenario is Donbas is free to choose to be Russian along with Crimea and Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between NATO and Russia after a loss

          • Barbariandude [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’ve obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.

            Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people’s willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, “rules-based diplomacy” just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That “just a bit” part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.

            The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It’s very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it’s the honest truth.

            As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you’re saying with that final sentence is “Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists”.

            • tuga [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine

              Who cares, socialists in imperialists countries don’t support their side in proxy wars, period.

            • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I disagree entirely that that “just a bit” exists at all. Direct imperial wars were limited only by the conditions and interests of the imperial power, and the justifications only resulted in extra work AFTERWARD the decisions were made to make convincing arguments (or find a way to hide the war).

              With all due respect, you’re not just influences by perspective or lack of impartiality, but by your own interests. Being just west of Ukraine means that the fascistic border for expropriation (I mean from the West, but also possibly from Russia) will come closer the further west Russia can push. You benefit at least minmially from global imperialism by having that expropriation lead to imports on your side. I don’t blame you for desiring to not be hurt by that “border” movement, and I have to hope I will stay strong and support my comrades and movement when that inevitably comes to my place and not try to gain/maintain personal benefits. It’s always violent, just usually somewhere else.

              This article is the best description for my understanding of Fascism: https://redsails.org/really-existing-fascism/

              Russia is just as fascist as every capitalist government. But so far, Crimea hasn’t been experiencing the violence anymore than any other group and less than from the imperial core when they were under Ukraine. If “more fascist” means more violent and expropriating more", which is in line wiht that essay, then I think Russia is less fascist. They have legitimately experienced less of the expropriation than before. I think Donbas would be the same, and there’s a chance that that continues westward as fascism attempts to consume the border regions for profits.

              • Barbariandude [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word “fascist” means compared to you, which I’m glad you’ve identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we’re just talking about different things. I’ll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I’ll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.

                • Yeah my definition is more “niche” but I just fundamentally disagree withe philosophical underpinnings of definition like Umberto Eco gave and such. I think it’s clearly a liberal definition lacking in material or dialectical understanding of the world and fails to ever define anything really.

                  Regardless, definition itself isnt the basis of the convo. If what I call fascism was called “time-location-based-expropriation-interests”, we could still have the convo. we’re talking about real things regardless of the word. I still think we disagree after that though, unless the essay also convinces you of an evil you didn’t previously understand and results in you agreeing with my analysis or so.

                  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I love how Lemmy libs always go “hexbears just harass everyone they disagree with, they never civilly discuss anything” and most of the time I see disagreements on hexbear go this way.

                    I want to thank you for a well-thought out and patient explanation of your viewpoint, it’s stuff like this that leads me to wanting to learn more, and which keeps me curious and critical.
                    Really A+ posting, thank you for taking the time.