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

    Hey at least they helped that Communist guy in Ukraine that lost his eye and had a red star etched into his back by the Nazis there

  • aport@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ukraine’s counteroffensive is a massive failure and any media reporting the contrary is fascist western propaganda 😭😭😭

      • aport@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense. Even if Ukraine does not regain a centimeter of land it has a duty and obligation to try.

        I know you all hate Ukraine and think they should lay down and let Russia steamroll into Kiev and annex the whole country. But reality doesn’t always reflect your geopolitical wet dreams.

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

          Did field marshal Douglas Haig write this?
          “You see them preparing defense fortifications which we throw ourselves senselessly into is actually a part of our master plan”.
          Are you doing a weird Blackadder bit?
          “They’d expect us NOT to attack where they are strongest, with little to no preparation and no chance of victory.”
          “I see a small issue with your plan sir. It’s the same we used the last 16 times.”
          “Which is precisely why they won’t expect us to do it again!”

          Russia is sitting on all the territory that it claimed, and is now in a war of attrition which it is winning pretty handedly in part because Ukrainians are being thrown into a meat grinder they have no chance of beating.

          I know you all hate Ukraine

          Hating ukrainians is when you don’t want them to die in the thousands for a pointless war.

          Oh wait you didn’t mean people you meant the political entity.
          I don’t really give a shit about countries, and I really can’t give a shit about which political entity ends up “winning” the game war. I care about people, and I’d like for them not to die.

          But reality doesn’t always reflect your geopolitical wet dreams.

          Are you being serious right now? The first of the surovikin line could not even be breached. You’re talking about thousands of casualties being worth it for some greater political goal. That’s geopolitics you idiot! You’re the one talking geopolitics, and you’re basing your wants on a fantasy. Thousands of ukrainians are dead, more are dying, and the Russians are chilling in defensive fortifications. But somehow you think I’m the one with a geopolitical aim and an unrealistic worldview?

          When do you think this war will end? You seem to think the Ukrainians will have to expel the Russian military first, so that would take the dismantling of the three defensive lines, as well as the lines that will have been erected further back in the meantime. Going by how you think they should do it - Throwing themselves to their deaths by the thousands - they will run out of Ukrainians before anything else happens. If you’re so into this grand geopolitical game, go fucking volunteer yourself. You’ll die in a ditch and the world will be none the worse for it.

          • Vncredleader@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            God I can’t believe you hate Belgians and the French, why must you be so against them being shredded by artillery and choking on mustard gas? Don’t you know that Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?

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

              During the war of 1864 Denmark should’ve fought to the last man. Retreating after the battle at Dybbøl Mill and ceding Holstein to the Prussians is a breaking of their obligation to die as cannon fodder

              • ChapoKrautHaus [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You could have picked ANY hopeless last stand from 2000+ years of military history and you went for an obscure sideshow war in the German unification wars that less than 1% of humans are even aware of.

                Impressive.

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

                  Thank you! I was hoping to start a thing where we went further and further back in time and obscurity. Sadly I chose something too obscure to being with

          • aport@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can’t pretend to be altruistic when your idea of peace is letting Putin forcibly annex all former Soviet states. Come off it.

            A counteroffensive is Ukraine’s prerogative, right, and in many senses an obligation.

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

              I think Ukraine should negotiate for the best peace settlement it can get, and take it. You strawmanning me into thinking something else isnt really surprising, but it is disappointing that none of you delusional bloodthirsty armchair generals can even handle a differing perspective. This is further proved by your failure to answer a single one of my questions, instead once again choosing to soapbox to some imagined audience. Answer my questions you weak-willed little ingrate.

              A counteroffensive is Ukraine’s prerogative, right, and in many senses an obligation.

              Obligation??? They’re obligated to throw thousands to their death? Fuck you, go volunteer. That’s your obligation. You have a moral obligation to go fight for Ukraine, you obviously think it is wrong for Russia to invade, so you are obligated to go do your duty in Ukraine. Or are you a coward, only willing to cheer on the death of others in a far away land?
              You’re doing the Shrek meme, but unironically.
              Go give your life for the cause you snivelling little coward. You have an obligation to fight for glorious Ukraine.

              • aport@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think Ukraine should negotiate for the best peace settlement it can get, and take it

                And what do you imagine that settlement would be, other than a complete surrender of every square kilometer of their land, their people, and their lives?

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

                  You’re just making shit up instead of looking at Russia’s stated, implied, and material goals.

                  a complete surrender of every square kilometer of their land

                  Russia doesn’t want to annex all of Ukraine. There’s nothing for them in the north. At the very most they would annex Novorossiya, but if Ukraine were to go to the negotiating table right now they likely would get away with only losing the four oblasts that Russia already annexed, plus Crimea ofc. Aside from that land, Russia wants guarantees that Ukraine will stay out of NATO and the EU.

                  their people, and their lives

                  There is absolutely no evidence that Russia wants to or is carrying out a genocide of Ukrainians. There has been no rhetoric from Russia that the Ukrainian ethnicity as a whole are some untermensch and/or threat to society that needs to be removed. In fact there’s been the opposite, that Ukrainians are their brothers, “little Russians”. The only genocidal/ethnic cleansing rhetoric I’ve seen has been from Ukraine’s side, celebrating when a random Russian civilian is killed by a shark, calling all Russians “orcs”, wanting to remove Russian civilians from Crimea (who have been living there long before it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954), anti-Russian language laws which Human Rights Watch reported concerns about just a month before the invasion.

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

                  Jesus Christ where do you people get these ideas from? Do you never go check anything for yourselves? Is your worldview shaped by scary bedtime stories told by your nana The Us State Department?
                  When has Russia ever claimed it wanted to annex all of Ukraine? Why would it even?? Why would it want to occupy a large region that would resist it’s rule, why would it want to get embroiled in countless territory conflicts and battle out hundreds of mini quagmires, when it could just annex the autonomous regions that do not have these issues?
                  https://hexbear.net/comment/3845791

                  Now answer my questions you unimaginative impotent rat. Get off your condescending dead rhetorical horse and answer my questions, if you have any intellectual integrity.

                • I’m just curious – why are you so concerned with the nation-state of Ukraine maintaining its border, at apparently any cost? You virtue signal all day long that you’re just concerned for the poor Ukranians, and yet you seem to conflate land, people, and constructed imaginary borders like they’re interchangeable. Does “surrender of every square kilometer of their land” mean the same as them “losing their lives?” Is there a giant killswitch that just obliterates every inhabitant of a country when the arbitrary name associated with that land changes?

                  The point is this: I’ve got cousins fighting on the frontlines who can’t wait to get the fuck out of that warzone, and you seem to have more of a perfectly liberal, purely aesthetic disgust for the idea of land changing ownership than you do for the notion of hundreds of thousands of people dying in a fucking trench in a needless war.

                  Fuck Putin, fuck Zelensky, fuck Ukraine and fuck Russia, fuck the United States, and fuck the bourgeois scum who pump out all the vile propaganda you’re regurgitating, that tell you a piece of land is worth more than your family’s life.

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

              You can’t pretend to be altruistic when your idea of peace is letting Putin forcibly annex all former Soviet states.

              You’re a child

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

              Peace follows once the war ends, regardless of whether you win or lose said war.

              And you shouldn’t fight battles you have no chance of winning, and which won’t benefit you at all in the long run. Doing so anyways is lunacy.

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

          Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense

          I think the russians are quite confortable being on the defense right now, seems like the defensive position has an inherent advantage in this war, ukraine had it at first.

          You’re an idiot

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

          Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense. Even if Ukraine does not regain a centimeter of land it has a duty and obligation to try.

          This sounds like the kind of cope that Manstein, Model, and Guderian would have said to Hitler, hats in hand, after getting obliterated at the Battle of Kursk.

          In fact I think the Ukrainian generals knew long ago that they were setting themselves up to get Kursk’d. Most of them had served in the Soviet military and there’s no way they made it through Soviet officer school without learning the ins and outs of that battle.

          The fact that they ended up going through with it anyway speaks to something unspeakably fucked up going on behind the scenes.

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The KPRF was the only party that never stopped supporting and materially aid the people and the militias of Donbass over the years. Reminder that Putin wanted to return Donbass to Ukraine to make amends with Europe, and is now only being forced to take the matter into his own hands because he was denied from joining the fascist club of Europe.

          • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s what the Minsk agreements were all about.

            In the 12-point protocol included the adoption of the “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts” that was passed in Ukraine’s parliament in September 2014. It would grant increased autonomy to the local governments in Donbass. And as you will note, this was a bill from the Ukrainian parliament - meaning that Donbass will be returned to Ukraine but with the conditions of having more local autonomy.

            To elaborate further, the protests against the Maidan coup government stemmed from the fact that the very first act of the new regime was repealing the Kolesnycheno-Kivalov Language Law that was approved in 2012, which granted the regional language status to Russian and other languages. The Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine obviously saw it as an infringement on their language rights, and started to protest, which eventually devolved into a separatist movement and then a full-fledged civil war (most significantly fueled by the the Odessa Trade Union House massacre by the fascists).

            So, an important resolution to the conflict in Ukraine would be for the Donbass regions with Russian-speaking majority population to have autonomy when it comes to protecting their cultural identities, such that someone in Kyiv cannot simply impose a nationwide ban on certain languages without regards for the local population in the regions.

            Ukraine refused to implement Minsk.

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dugin is basically irrelevant inside of Russia, he’s just beloved by westerners for some reason. He’s sort of like Tom Clancy or Jordan Peterson for Russia.

          In one of his books he says that what Russia needs to do is annex northern China. Do you think that’s something that’s part of Russia’s geopolitical plan or are these the ramblings of a crazy person?

        • Vncredleader@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah a good way to look at it is that the My Pillow guy has more actual direct influence on geopolitical leaders than Dugin ever did

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

      Dugin’s book states:

      You’re paying more attention to that guy than anyone in russia with decision making power is.

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

      The donbass region is an important industrial region, eastern ukraine is were most of the black soil is, sevastapol is one of the only 2 warm water ports of russia, and ukraine has high population with prewar amount of 50 million

      Its a rich country, dugin is just a fascist that sees all non russians as inferiors aka an idiot

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

          yea, if you think russia wants to take over those rich areas then its for sure imperialism, if you think they are doing it to protect the russian speaking people in the east then its not, it would probably fall in something like nationalism.

          my point was mostly to show that ukraine is in fact important in a geopolitical strategic way.

        • CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it’s an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.

          I would argue that while the thesis “the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation”, holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn’t an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).

          Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn’t rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of “super-imperialism” that Kautsky put forward.

          In all the above this doesn’t change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).

            • CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm

              To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.

              From that perspective “imperialism” does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to “empires” in the vague sense of “Roman Empire, French empire, etc”. The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism’s demise, serving as the “primitive accumulation of capital” that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most “advanced” expression of capitalism). It’s understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.

              Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an “invention” nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the “word” for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).

          • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely, Western media has to shine spotlights and magnify nut cases like Dugin because the Russian government is pretty competent and generally correct in their statements when it comes to geopolitics

              • ProxyTheAwesome [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t have to like Putin to agree you need to listen when he speaks, as he delivers threats and warnings that he often is serious about and follows through with. His red lines were extremely explicit and clear, and were flagrantly crossed at many points - and he eventually pushed back as he warned he would. He is competent and makes rational moves, and he just iced the dude who tried to coup him 2 months to the day after he said he would.