An Australian You Tuber who has a great (Western) overview of Russia's mistakes regarding this war.
It does involve history and an hour of your life, but if you think information is a good way to understand events then I recommend a watch. https://youtu.be/94bqk8cB9iQ?t=1
Please correct me if I'm wrong ....
In the end Russia was the one who started this war that escalated very quickly. They have always had the chance to stop it but the Russian ''troops'' (more like people whove been let out of prison) were tricked into believing they are doing military training. It's ridiculous to even discuss this, it's 2023 and the war is still ongoing. Look at the state of Ukraine, Russia has destroyed most of the infrastructure. Not to mention the amount of horrific things done to innocent civilians. Disgusting.
But that would be hard to grasp for the common Russki just because they have been fed the information that ''Ukraine started the war''. Bunch of retards. Even the media in Russia that had decent amount of self respect just stepped back from broadcasting anything, because media in Russia is forced instead of actually having informational resources that are fact checked. Morons
Here we go again. I can see by the emotional coloring and insults in your comment that you're agitated. But can you answer questions calmly and rationally? It feels like you haven't even tried to read the thread.
What is Russia as you understand it? If one person is Russia, then for example you are Latvia, right?
Who is "they"? And how exactly to stop it?
If you are referring to the Wagner's PMC, then technically it is not part of the Russian army.
This is an army of Eugene Prihozhin personally. He personally traveled through prisons and recruited people for the war. And I am not aware of the situation in which they were tricked.
Well...i mean..you're discussing it.
It true that is horrific things done to innocent civilians, but most of the infrastructure in Ukraine has been destroyed? Where do you find your sources of information?
There are 27 regions and 24 oblasts in Ukraine. And for this year Putin does not even manage to capture four of them, which he has already claimed as his own. (Pictrure for you from November 25, but nothing much has changed there) Yes, there are many small towns that where the infrastructure has been severely damaged, some of the larger cities have suffered. but even in the captured regions, such as Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, most people still live there, and most of the infrastructure is intact. Although there have been attacks from the Ukrainian side since 2014.
Yes, Mariupol suffered the most. But that's because the Russian army shelled AFU positions that were hiding mostly in civilian infrastructure. But this happens in any modern war that takes place in a city, the for example Russian army also used civilian houses when the Ukrainians attacked Kherson captured by Russian army, unfortunately this cannot be avoided. Post-Soviet panel buildings are made of thick concrete and are well suited to protect infantry. There are evacuations every time before the attacks, but many people just don't want to leave their homes.
Yes, the military infrastructure in the unoccupied regions which was attacked in most cases. Same as was the power plant infrastructure was bombed, to complicate the work of the Ukrainian military. And sometimes missiles flew into cities in non-captured regions. Sometimes because of Ukraine's air defense, sometimes because of individual soldiers who were holding meetings in the city. Sometimes they probably just missed. But these are isolated cases.
To say that "most of the infrastructure in Ukraine has been destroyed" is simply incorrect from a factual point of view.
It's not because someone is retarded. Propaganda works the same way all over the world. If you tell your people (no matter what kind) for 10 years that 2+2=5, they will believe it.
The Rwandan genocide was artificially provoked by propaganda, people just pulled out knives and started cutting essentially the same people just because they were told so on the radio. North Koreans believe Kim Jong-un is a god who rules the world because of propaganda. Some Russians believe that most Ukrainians are Bandera supporters who sympathize with the Nazis and they in power of Ukraine too. And that's why denazification is needed. Some Americans believe that if you consider yourself a transgender deer at age 10, it's okay. And you need a surgical sex change because of that. Propaganda is everywhere. It's just propaganda in some major media it's more fierce, and in others it's less so.
True, if you now want to tell the truth in front of some kind of audience in Russia, at best you will be fired and fined administratively. And in the worst case, criminal penalties for dozens of years or simply get killed, as has already been done to many people. And all independent media outlets have already been labeled as foreign agents, (i.e. enemies of the people in the terminology of the USSR) which makes their work in Russia impossible. This is why the Russians are now especially zombified by the double dose of propaganda, compared to the already quite strong propaganda in peacetime.
Wtf is you talking about? In the quoted fragment I am not mentioned at all, as in my other comments.. Don't you have nothing to answer to me that you just decided to talk nonsense that unrelated to reality? I understand that you are brainwashed, but is it that much? You couldn’t even reproduce russian propaganda takes? Come on, you can do it, I believe in you.
While my interlocutors still do not want to answer me, I found an interesting thing. This is one of those rare cases where a person in Russia tries to remain a journalist to the end.
Vladimir Posner, a man who grew up in the West. (In France and the United States) And moved to the USSR when he was a teenager. And in this sense he has a profound understanding of both cultures
At a time when everyone is discussing specific events, news, fakes, about whom to blame, about who is a villain and who is a hero, about labeling... I like him for trying to remain objective and trying to understand on the big picture and the reasons of what happened.
And after a year of silence he finally gave his comment on the situation.
If you've read past posts in this thread and others, you may notice some overlap between our positions.
I miss Boris Yeltsin. He came here to Houston and wasn't nearly as impressed with NASA as he was the grocery store nearby. He seemed like the type of person you could have a beer with and go bowling. Putin, Putin, Putin. The problem with Putin is who's gonna replace him when the time comes? And for the Russian people my worry is how far down will the infighting resulting from that go? Will Chechnya try to break away again if Kadyrov gets whacked? Will Iran and China make power moves to have more influence in Russia? Will the oligarchs play nice with the west to get their boats back?
Then there's Syria. When the Putin regime comes to an end, what happens there? Like it or not, Russia is the stabilizing nation involved in that mess. They keep us and the Iranians from getting into it. They keep the Turks and Kurds from going at it And they help keep that idiot dictator in some sort of control as opposed to ISIS or some other bunch of nut cases. All that goes away once Putin does.
Historical parallels aren't a good tool, but you can see how involved parties interact if a situation repeats.
Analogy 1: Stalin destroyed all competitors and surrounded himself with sycophants, but when he died, his right hand Beriya, leader of the security services (supposedly his successor to then tradition, as he was organizing the funeral) was killed within couple of months. The fight for the leadership lasted 3 years, till Khrushchov finally won in 1956.
Analogy 2: The collapse and dissolution of the USSR happened when 2 conditions happened: (A) by 1989 the country went bankrupt (that's why they couldn't support puppet regimes in Eastern Europe), (B) local national elites became consolidated.
While (A) will likely be the case, (B) isn't seen on the horizon. Current Federal government took a lot of effort for the last 15 years to eradicate local elites networks, e.g. by firing local governors (by agreement or by made-up criminal charges). There is indeed some resentment to Moscow in many regions, especially national republics, but local elites don't look strong now. In the 1990s, Russia was broke for years, and yet nobody except Chechnya tried to separate.
So you're thinking some sort of coup will happen and it will be limited to only the very top levels of the gov't and the elites? It's possible. It makes sense that things would play out that way. But if that were to happen, they wouldn't have 3 years to settle things. And this would have to be limited to only the very top levels of power. The further down the govt pipeline this goes and the longer it takes to assert authority, the more likely things spiral out of control There's going to be all sorts of nations, not just mine and China's (maybe even yours), corporations and extremists that will want a piece of Russia. And if there's a power vacuum for too long things will get nasty. And then lets not forget Navalny. If he isn't executed outright or has a "fatal accident", he could use the vacuum to his advantage and empower the opposition movements into waging a civil war. I don't see the Russian Opposition and reform movements getting what they want peacefully. Especially when the people they are opposing would be looking at serious jail time.
But I do think we're overlooking something here. Where does Steven Segal fit into all of this?
I don't think it's a threat currently. For Russian Empire, it took 3 years to drain the economy, while converting for military production, and a vast draft of people to the frontlines (IIRC, it was about several millions), plus after the February 1917 revolution, the interim government continued the war, exhausting itself and its army further. So, at the end of such effort, sure, the control over armed forces was lost, and the October revolution met little resistance initially, but it turned into a civil war later.
Currently, Russia keeps internal forces, the draft is rather small and is done outside of big cities, to avoid big noteable riots -- and the masses still support the war, because for them it's still a TV picture. The economy isn't converted to military production, the govt has a pretty competent team of economists who keep finance, exchange rates and budget in ok state, and avoid taking money directly from the masses -- those economists seem to be the real backbone of Putin's authoritarian regime.
Regarding foreign countries, Europe decided to stop countries from capturing territories back in the middle of 19th century -- the Crimean war of 1853-56 was started to stop Russian Empire from capturing something near the Black Sea. And the last territory captures happened in 1970 between Israel and Arabic countries. (Plus, occupying any territory makes locals nationalists, which happened in West Ukraine taken over by USSR in WW2, and in East Ukraine now.)
If anyone wants some territory, they usually tell lost of grievances and narratives about it -- many thinkers in Russia were telling this of Ukraine, and speaking of restoring the USSR since 1990s. (Already in 1996 the parliament with Communist majority passed the first "decree" denouncing the agreements on dissolution of the USSR!) But I don't see this in case of China. They already have troubles keeping their North populated -- people move from there to South-East.
Lastly, Chinese business openly sets up lumber cutting factories and buys a lot of lumber from Siberia (devastating woods in vast territories) just by bribing locals, without any armed forces.
Regarding Navalny... well, if there happens a civil war and he comes out, IDK, he might get some daredevil followers, that's probable. But there are many more adherents of pure communism ideology among the lower classes and the military. Not the European "socialism" that scares some Americans, but rampant communism: no private property, centralized distribution of housing, food, centralized pricing, and so on -- the same thing that failed utterly in the early Soviet Republic in 1918-1921 (with several millions starved to death), and under Mao -- yeah, even a good deal of young people love the idea. BTW, Igor "Strelkov" Girkin (who took down the MH17 B777) is one of its most noteable proponents.
Sarcasm? What's the point? So you meant to say I'm a nice guy who cares about others? Yeah, ofcourse, that sounds like you... (That's sarcasm, and it's clear what I'm getting at.)
Every time when they have nothing to say, they talk nonsense, and when they realize they shit themselves, they hide behind sarcasm.. So lame.
Coup, Civil War, collapse of the country.. in my opinion, you share the skin of an unkilled bear too early. We are talking about the future in the current situation from which there are no prerequisites for any of the listed options. Which in my opinion is even more.
For example, Putin can stay in power for another 20 years, for example, and transfer power to a successor who will adhere to the same course of authoritarianism, the loyalty of the political elite bought for huge corruption, the lack of freedoms and democracy and the system of brainwashing people that will only improve.
Or even if Putin were to step down from power for unstated reasons, such as the snuffbox scenario. Then power can still be seized by Mishustin or Shaigu, or any of the politicians who are now close to Putin. And in this case, most likely, the policy will remain about the same, or there will be a slight liberalization and democratization. But I'm not sure about that either.
I hardly believe in the scenario of a coup and the coming to power of a conditional Navalny. And if this happens I do not think it will be good. Too many people are zombified by today's propaganda, it will take a long time to get this noodle out of their ears. And that is why there is a risk of civil war and splitting the country. The question of the Caucasus goes there as well. Imao the only possible way for an effective transition to democracy and liberalization of the country is now through a very slow stage-by-stage transition, perhaps even through several presidents.
In any case, none of us has a crystal ball to look there and know what will happen in the future, too many factors are hidden behind the walls of the Kremlin that we do not know about.
But it all depends on the outcome of this war. The longer the conflict drags on, the worse it is for Putin's rating. When there are no set goals and objectives of the war, it is not clear what the victory in the war is. But it is definitely not the capture of four regions of Ukraine, otherwise there is a question even in the minds of zombified propaganda people, for what it was? For what purpose it was necessary to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Russian people.. That it would have existed like Donbass during these 8 years? To get four subsidized regions that now need to be restored at their own expense? Whats the point? Although perhaps the propaganda will find excuses even for this.
Roughly speaking, I meant the opposite: these aren't beyond the corner. Civil war started after a very exhaustive war, revolution and corruption in military/police.
Yes, you're right, I meant that you discussed these possibilities. And so the analogies were also used.
Although I do not really like historical analogies. Just like any other analogy. An analogy can be used if you want to explain something to the interlocutor but not when you want to make a argument. For example, why do you think so and not otherwise can be supplemented with an analogy for better understanding. But analogy is not argument by default. Because an analogy just is a comparison of two things by one or more properties. And this cannot be argument because it is a violation of the rule of identity. For example - there is a red apple, and red strawberries. These are two different things that have the same property of being red. But that does not mean that an apple is a strawberry. And so you can compare any thing like that, but it essentially does not mean anything.
We can discuss cause and effect, why some events occurred, what were the prerequisites for this, and how it led to the current situation. We can look at the global picture of the confrontation between the parties. We can even discuss what might happen in the future. In my opinion, this all makes more sense than analogies.
If you mean after-effect, then Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I don't quite agree that WWI was the reason for the Civil War, Yes, it had an influence, but not a priority. And maybe even the opposite of WWI delayed the revolution. Although it's debatable. Imao the Civil War was a consequence of the Revolution. You can probably say that the revolution happened as a result of the war, but the October Revolution was primarily a consequence of the February Revolution. And the socialists tried to overthrow the government at the beginning of the twentieth century. They were among those who fomented the revolution of 1905-1907. They staged terrorist attacks and tried in every way to seize power. And then in 1917 the socialists made their move on base of strong protest sentiments in the aftermath of the February Revolution in moment the war came to a standstill. Because some of them probably feared that starting a revolution in wartime was not a good idea. But people like Lenin who said that they would turn an imperialist war into a civil war, meaning a war against the political bourgeois elites. But in the end they made a real civil war against their own people. And Russia suffered big losses in the war and was forced to accept peace with the captured independence of states.
I don't quite understand why you're being ironic here. Are you a biological determinist or something?
We discuss cause and effect, why this or that happened, and how it led to the current situation. And we constructively argue about this. And personally, I also try to understand the big picture and the global geopolitical situation. What's wrong with that?
I often hear about the 80% of the Russians supporting the war. And for those who do not live in Russia it is difficult to explain why this sociology is not true.
There is an English-speaking Russian on YouTube who left Russia after the start of the war, who explains to a Western audience about the same thing that I am trying to explain in my posts. This is great stuff if you want to understand what is really going on in Russia.
Just one of the videos as an example.
Imagine yourself as the hero of a 1984 novel (I highly recommend you read it if you haven't already) imagine that people from the Ministry of Truth are approaching you for a sociological survey and want to know your opinion about government of your contry. Do you even want to answer them? Will you tell them the truth? And even if you say they will pass your answer to the statistics in an honest way?
Many Western people do not understand what a totalitarian society is. And how ridiculous are their questions about "why the Russians are not protesting?" .. (And in general we protest, as we can..) Why didn't you ask yourself why the North Koreans are not protesting? It is the same..
I was lucky to be born in the relatively free 90s, where there was some kind of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but not now. In the last 10 years authoritarianism has become so strong in Russia that put roots in all spheres of human life. Which pours on you like from a bucket from a TV, radio, newspapers, from the Internet, from a place of work, from a university, from school, and even from kindergarten.. Which simply cannot be ignored. And there are only two ways: either he will break you and you will accept the situation and become who you are told to become, or you will resist to the end the imposition on you of how you need to think, how you need to speak, how you need to live and how you need to die. And even in this situation, many still resist.
Yeah, ofcourse, that sounds like you...
(That's sarcasm, and it's clear what I'm getting at.) 