This needs to be very widely publicized.
It was a presidential debate. It was fairly publicized.
I dunno, I just read an article about that country’s political debate from last night and it didn’t mention this point, it was mostly discussing how angry that bloke got at the other politician and how overall it seems like it was a bad night for him and a good night for her.
The specifics were a bit overshadowed by the perceived importance of the event and it’s outcome itself, I think.
I’m sure in the coming days some more details will flow out of the USA and we’ll hear some discussion of specifics where they concern us, like their politician’s stances on the war in Europe, I agree. I’ve just not seen it mentioned just yet is all.
But it’s only 7am and I think the debate was in the middle of the night, so I shouldn’t expect much yet haha :-D
I think maybe they mean… Like, not washed out by the other 90 minutes of crazy shit he was saying.
Watching it made me so hungry, going to doordash some fried kitten.
Oh no doubt. I only wish she hadn’t spent so much time explaining what a fucking idiot he was instead of taking about herself or her plans. He made all those talking points for her by, well, talking… It was a great beat down nonetheless, and I get it was her one time to really make a fool out of him in person, but again, he did that better than anyone ever could.
Great show overall, would watch season 2.
She walked him like a dog. Flatly stated he could be easily manipulated, and proceeded to do just that. He could not even muster the courage to make meaningful eye contact with her the entire debate. She just stared him down and dominated him. How brutally emasculating for him.
But Kamala Harris should have poited that out and reminded everyone that Trump wouldn’t answer. Then it would be her jabbing him instead of some talking head no one knows letting it pass. Missed opportunity.
It won’t. Because people are hung up about the eating pets thing. Which, insane as it is might have happened.
Idk why the actual issues are swept under the rug, and the controversial takes are the focus.
It will not put off his voters. Some of them just don’t care about anything international. Others admire Putin as a strongman who isn’t afraid to kill his enemies and persecute minorities, a moral conservative, a self-professed Christian, an ally against democracy and a defender of the same bigotries they share.
He doesn’t just need the MAGA faithful to win. I can’t believe I have to keep saying this.
You’re right. The hope is that they’re not enough and he fails to attract anyone else.
I don’t think he’s gaining voters and I do think he’s losing them.
I want to save lives that are being uselessly
Yeah that sounds about right
That’s why he’s nothing more than vatnik kompromat.
Removed by mod
Fuck you
Removed by mod
What’d I miss?
Trolling
Just came to agree, fuck Ukraine. All these drones have no real knowledge of that situation literally on the other side of the planet.
Real knowledge: Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
Contest that fact.
Ok? The US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of. These invasions were supported by a majority here and believed to be justified. We invaded countries on the opposite side of the world. Russia invaded their neighbors, basically their extended family, and we’re supposed to get involved and support one side or the other? The only reason it’s a big issue is because it’s pushed my certain political and powerful people. I’m willing to bet 50% of the money “sent to Ukraine” just ends up in the pockets of politicians and leeches here.
Nice whataboutism, but I have the perfect counter: I don’t support the US and it’s history of invading other countries.
Similarly, I don’t support Russia invading Ukraine. I don’t gamble so you can continue your “bets”, but I’d love to hear how supporting someone who is defending themselves is wrong.
If someone breaks into your home and you fight for your life, I support you in that endeavor.
You all need to stop claiming “whataboutism.” It is called a comparison, and if you supported it or not, it was a good comparison.
I’m not y’all, I’m me. And no that was literally whataboutism.
“[What about the fact that] US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of.”
Yeah what about it?
I don’t support those invasions and them happening doesn’t justify the Russo-Ukrainian invasion. You chose to deflect and then bet about where the money was going, for some reason.
Comparing isn’t “deflecting.” The fact that you also compared how you also didn’t support the US invasions to the Russia invasion kind of proves it was a fair and relevant comparison. YOU should consider calling some things "whataboutism"s is sometimes “deflecting”.
Comparing for what reason?
That’s just Whataboutism, you know it
Basically most of it ends in the hands of the military industrial complex.
It’s sad to see that the libs are just as post-truth as the magats are. The doublethink is honestly astounding. Not only is the US and NATO good (except for gaza) but it’s also evil to invade other countries that pose a threat to national security (unless the US does it). Everything Putin says is a lie and he’s Hitler and will always attack if we let him. Nato is completely harmless and a NATO armed Ukraine never was a danger to Russia except now when they managed to hold their own for so long and now shoot back into Russia after being so well armed by NATO. Why would the Russians not like NATO? Russians are Orcs because they are Nazis, except Nazis aren’t Nazi’s if they are Ukrainians. There was never any interference with e.g. the Euromaidan coup except we welcomed Ukraine into NATO and the EU with open arms and the CIA works excellent together with Ukraine intelligence services. Oppression is bad but Slava Ukraina and banning Russian is fine. Anyone who wants piece is a warmonger and Putin apologist. We are finally the good guys again! Stop the whataboutism of the entire history of US meddling and coups and illegal wars!
The historical facts are pretty clear how this conflict came about and why. It was a miscalculation - They didn’t think Russias economy could support so much arms manufacturing. They also thought China wouldn’t back Russia. But of course they did because they know they are next lol. There have been like 40 meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping and this war has brought them together. They are expanding BRICS and making new connection with the global south.
Of course this is still a win-win for the US empire and the oligarchs however this ends. They won’t let it escalate to nuclear war and the wealth transfers are massive. The only losers are the taxpayers and the Ukrainians and Russians.
Lets not talk about the insane level of greenhouse gases emitted because of this war.
Love it! Thank you for that. I have been corrected and concede. I mean damn, that was well-informed.
Thanks, I was rather agreeing with you. And the whole thing is murky with lots of disinformation and feints on both sides. You kinda have to thread a thin line between US empire, liberal, socialist and Russian propaganda to find anything. My main gripe is that the narrative on the lib side is so obviously false and constructed in a way that makes demanding diplomatic solutions impossible. It’s maddening!
Here is an interview with an Pascal Lottaz an “Ukrainian Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies” who was arrested and Amnesty International helped to get asylum in Finnland. His youtube channel features discussions with academics about current topics.
Fuck is wrong with you?
Removed by mod
Me and my popcorn wanna know what this guy’s deleted comments said
2 hours old account. Hey Russians, try harder.
Major update: politician acts like a politician.
Lololololololololol, no, fuck this bullshit so much. This isn’t normal, this is fucked up, Trump is fucked up
Ew. Lol. 1 liner king over here. Your profile confirms that you have nothing intelligent or otherwise important to add to anything. You’re just noise.
There are still 1 or 2 people in this thread you haven’t responded to.
Funny how the people who do the most talking always have theleast to say.
Lol it is funny isn’t it.
He’d give up on Ukraine. And call it a win.
“Winning the battle is worth losing the war”
(Trump, The Art of the Deal, pp. 179-181)
That’s a short sentence for that many pages. I knew it was in big print, but…
It’s illustrated so his voters can understand the book
From the chapter: “Yeah, but remember that one time…”
“I could make a deal with Hitler to stop this war tomorrow!”
Yeah pretty much.
Aka appeasement. We tried it Donny. Though this time it’s Trump who wants to be dictator.
Trump doesn’t care so long as Russia keeps paying him.
Yea, that infuriated me.
The Jews would have had peace if they’d just let themselves be taken to camps peacefully.
This is less funny because Russia literally did commit a holocaust in Ukraine.
or maybe extort them again.
He refused to answer any question
That’s not true, he very clearly answered that he’s stronger than Superman and smarter than Batman.
He could beat Batman for sure, especially with prep time to make a concept of a plan.
Putler is betting on trump to win. If Harris wins, it’s over for him.
Well, officially, Putin supports Harris, but who knows with that deranged man.
He endorsed her specifically so that Trump would say that in the debate. And he did.
And how do you, pray tell, know that?
Here’s a guy who believes things that come out of Putin’s mouth, over his own eyes and his own government.
Remind me, which side just got busted for being literally paid by Russia to post pro-russian propaganda about the election and Ukraine? Wasn’t that conservatives? If Putin wants Kamala, why is Russia paying American conservative influencers millions of dollars to sway voters away from her?
Lmao I don’t really give a damn. I just quoted Putins’ own words, make that what you will and the fact is he supports Harris apparently.
That’s the thing you can’t trust putins own words lmao
I know you quoted Putin’s own words, that was my whole point lol. He said those words in response to the US GOVERNMENT saying that he is paying conservative influencers to influence the US election.
So, which source do you believe, Putin, or the US government? Go on
I dont really trust, either to be honest. What has the US government said on the matter?
If you’re just going to quote people and accept it as fact, I have the metal scrapping rights for the Eiffel tower for sale and I’m willing to do so for cheap.
Better than armchair conjecture, tbh.
Because I don’t live under a rock.
But you do since you just guess. I quote known sources, and you pull shit out your ass.
Please explain why Putin would endorse the person who says that Ukraine should win the war over the person who won’t say that.
I don’t need to explain anything. Again, I’m just citing facts, and you’re guessing. But honestly, how much do you think your armchair analytics are really worth? Or anyone’s for that matter?
You didn’t quote anything
Nobody “knows” it, but it’s totally within character for both of them.
Trump is so predictable he reliably fell for Harris’ obvious bait about his rally attendees etc.
It’s not farfetched to assume Putin, who is actually quite skilled in the art of manipulating people, would attempt to use Trump as a pawn in this manner.
Yeah well see therein lies the problem. There is a difference between knowing and not knowing, something that seems to matter next to nothing to people anymore
Let’s say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?
deleted by creator
That’s because officially Putin knows who he supports has negative connotations for the electorate.
Whoever Putin visibly puts his weight behind is the opposite of who he wants to win.
It’s also so the MAGA rubes (who mostly secretly root for Putin) can say “See Trump don’t balong ta no won cause Pootin was for the Kamunist!”
He of course supports Trump, he just likes to mess around Western politics
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn’t get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn’t matter how many die or whether there’s anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they’d asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she’s willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who’s consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they’d receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don’t know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that’s acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn’t been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it’s all in Russia’s favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it’s lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that’s not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup’ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90’s? Hey, wait a minute…
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that’s how it’s going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren’t happening.
Well you’ve decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don’t have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
deleted by creator
I made a guess, if I’m wrong, explain it to me.
You didn’t make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don’t try to weasel out of it now. You’re clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
I’ve never read such dumb bullshit in my life… until I found your comments…
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it’s that easy, then I definitely don’t think people should be going out and dying over it, there’s just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That’s a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won’t.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you’ll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what’s your timetable then?
It’s a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won’t listen, I guess.
deleted by creator
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don’t get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it’s your own fatherland, which in this case I’m assuming it’s not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I’m a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I’m a “staunch pacifist,” you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I’m out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome’s honor. But I’m a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does “pacifism” mean to you?
Here’s how Google defines it:
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I’ve read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any “pacifist” who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
Then you are not a pacifist
Ofcourse not. I’m Atlanticist. Pacific should shove a dildo up its ring of fire and fuck right off.
deleted by creator
Sorry, I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you’re pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I’ve read further shows that I’m obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I’m a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don’t. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I’m sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I’m not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn’t want any punches thrown in the first place.
That’s nonsense. If “pro-war” means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I’m not “pro-war” because I don’t actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I’d say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly “pro-war”, as they went in without provocation and the justification of “WMD” was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it’s weird to characterize self-defense as “pro-war” or “being a war hawk”. One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it’s wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as “pro-war”.
For example, I haven’t thrown a punch in decades, I don’t want to throw a punch and I’ll avoid doing so if there’s a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
What does the word ‘take’ mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
deleted by creator
I’m sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You’re being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
deleted by creator
Don’t you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the ‘good’ folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it’s not our blood to commit, it’s the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it’s their skin in the game, not our forces. It’s their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to ‘a couple of provinces’ is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that’s what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn’t claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually “pro-war”. In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being “pro-war”.
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn’t the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn’t significant “gray area” to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren’t useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually “caving” to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the “let the dictator win without resistance” strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here’s another example of “letting the dictator win without resistance.” The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30’s and the situation now, and even then it’s only one example, and one that’s vastly overused. And the reason that it’s overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. “If we don’t beat them now, they’ll keep coming forever.” All you have to do is paint the people you’re fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it’s intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So “appeasement” worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more “gray area” so it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don’t have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
Same reason you don’t see tankies in this thread.
Because he defederated them?
Russian Asset. Better dead than Red.
Americans being so politically illiterate they think that the government they practically installed is somehow communist.
lol remember to vote I guess
Nothing stupider than an American. Well, an American with a political agenda maybe.
What is Red in this context?
C. All of the above.
deleted by creator
Russia isn’t Communist anymore.
Why’d you delete that?
I decided it wasn’t worth arguing over.
Just to elaborate, my first thought was: “I dislike this anti-Communist Cold War-era hysteria. I’ll post something to try to counter this hysteria.”
And then I realized: Wait. People are going to think I’m “defending” Russia against accusations of being Communist, and I’m tired of people attacking me for being “pro-Russia”, so I deleted it almost immediately.
So, basically, I’ve started to self-censor my thoughts because I find the toxicity of Lemmy exhausting. Go enjoy hunting your Reds under the Bed, and I’m going to do something better with my time, like go outside.
I really wanted Lemmy to work out, but it’s clear to me that this place is as bad as Reddit, just in a different way.
So, basically, I’ve started to self-censor my thoughts because I find the toxicity of Lemmy exhausting. Go enjoy hunting your Reds under the Bed, and I’m going to do something better with my time, like go outside.
I really wanted Lemmy to work out, but it’s clear to me that this place is as bad as Reddit, just in a different way.
Depends on the instance. Lemmy.world tends to be one of the more toxic instances if you left Reddit, it’s trying to recreate Reddit itself, and the users are generally people who loved Reddit but hated Spez in particular for the API crisis.
russia isn’t “red” and never really was to begin with
Someone offended your favorite colonizer!
Quick, to the semantic-debate mobile, we must split the hairs!!
Nah dude, someone took the opportunity to use a slogan originating in witch hunts of people threatening the ruling class in their bleeding of post-war prosperity in America.
This is about some despot using their resources to interfere with what modest self-governance we have in America
That’s what annoys me the most. Tankies will go defend Russia like it’s the promised land of communism, when the only remnant of communism it has is rigged elections and propaganda.
Also wrong. Rigged elections would imply there ever was a communist Russia. There never was. It was (maybe at its best, in part) socialist and most of the time after the zars a military state. That is true for all states that were left leaning btw. No communists to be found.
No true Scotsman
Russia very much was communism in the real world.
Great argument. What do you base this on?
It’s like china calling itself communist right now.
Yes there was rhetoric in the USSR that suggested they were but it was an instrument to legitimate the horrible things that they did to their people.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless,[3][4][5][6] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[7][8]
That was not the case. It was state owned, as the transition from whatever system was there before to socialism plans. Communism is supposed to be something different.
I am not arguing that it would be good or better than anything we have today but am saying that we never saw communism in the modern world.
Change my mind with arguments and not down votes.
This is a semantic matter. No socialist state has ever claimed to have reached the stage of communism, including China. But some socialist states—including China—have been/are run by communist governments/parties, which claim to be working toward reaching that stage.
Okay lets use wiki as a source… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_states
The following communist states were socialist states committed to communism. Some were short-lived and preceded the widespread adoption of Marxism–Leninism by most communist states.
Russia Russia Chita Republic (1905–1906) Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1991) Amur Socialist Soviet Republic (1918) Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1918–1924) Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1918–1941) Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1991) Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1990) Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (1920–1925) Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1924) Dagestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1991) Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1921–1941; 1944–1945) Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1922–1991) Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1923–1990) Karelian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1923–1940; 1956–1991) Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (1925–1936) Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (1926–1936) Mordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1934–1990) Udmurt Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1934–1990) Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1935–1943; 1957–1991) Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1944; 1957–1991) Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1944; 1957–1991) Komi Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991) Mari Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1991) North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1993) Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1956) Kabardin Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1944–1957) Tuvan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1961–1992) Gorno-Altai Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1990–1991) Soviet Republic of Soldiers and Fortress-Builders of Naissaar (1917–1918) Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (1918) Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic (1919) Far Eastern Republic Far Eastern Republic (1920–1922) Tuvan People's Republic Tuvan People's Republic (1921–1944) Soviet Union Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)Would you look at that…
Communism isn’t about ideological purity. The USSR never made it to the global, total, Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society Marx describes as Upper Stage Communism, but the Soviets never argued that they had. What the Soviets did, was begin the process of working towards that.
Thanks for a proper response. More than others in this thread are capable of.
The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.
And yes it was their expressed and I believe trat they were truthful about that to create a communist state. But there were power struggles and the clear ideas became unclear and what remained (intentionally or not) was the name of the goal justifying all the horrible things.
Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.
China doesn’t call itself communist. It’s Socialist with Chinese characteristics.
You are right, I mixed something up
Same argument though for socialism. They are a capitalist country that calls itself something else. You don’t seriously believe they are socialist In any other way than their name.
This is incorrect. The USSR was Socialist, and was attempting to work towards building Communism.
Yes working towards as in socialism is the first stage to communism. But they didn’t get far thus my argument was there wasn’t communism in the USSR.
They got pretty far, they were Socialist for nearly the entire 20th century. They liberalized towards the end and were dissolved, but the narrative that they weren’t Socialist or that it wasn’t a real attempt at building Communism is nonsense.
Yes arguing that Russia was never socialist (or tried hard to be) would be nonsense. I am not arguing that though. I said that there was never communism. As in, archived and not used as veil to hide the failing government and society.
To be fair, it has the most boots to be licked and some people have urges that the rest of us will never understand. /S
Yeah keep dreaming about the communist utopia that will definitely happen… somewhere… at some point… …maybe…?
Communism isn’t Utopian, it isn’t a “perfect model of society” that people simply need to agree with in their minds to adopt. It’s closer to a theory of historical development and analyzing what will come after Capitalism in that long chain of development.
Knowing about it can speed up the process of development, since you can better direct it, but modes of production emerge from what came before.
This stood out to me. Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
The whole reason he tried to keep weapons from Ukraine was because he was given instructions by Putin to make Russia’s planned invasion easier.
Trump being Trump, he tried to extort some political favors or of Zelenskyy first, but clearing a path for Putin was always the goal.
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
That question is awkwardly worded, why are you putin it that way?
Just not russian to any conclusions
Tsar right to know if he’s compromised.
Moscows are fat. Trump is fat. Coincidence? Probably not.
?
Moscows=most cows
Ah.
Thanks
Fun fact: at his mother’s deathbed, Stalin reportedly told her that he had “become something like the Tsar”. Perfectly accurate FWIW.
Putin’s mum.
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win?
Yes, I think there’s this one man, Trumps big idol, I think his name was Vladimir the war criminal Putin.
What is confusing to me is why would it matter to Putin if Trump lied here? The Russian mode of government is lying and deception after all.
Does he actually think that his voters want Ukraine to lose? Oh fuck, do his voters actually want Ukraine to lose?
Half the big right wing youtubers are getting paid by Russia.
Yes. They want Ukraine to lose.
They’ve been listening to the Russian trolls and bots.
And bought and paid for Tim pool
Their line isn’t that Ukraine should lose, it’s that America shouldn’t give them money while homeless vets, Ukraine is corrupt, biden crime family, nato expansion, etc. Which coincidentally are all Russian talking points.
Those damn russians, constantly bringing up recent history like that.
Didn’t Hunter get like millions of dollars from both Russian and Ukranian oligarchs? It’s so cool how the kids of politicans always end up with these sweet deals- and to think Trump is claiming to be the deals guy
Oh thanks, I forgot hunter Biden.
Now go and Google what the Budapest memorandum was.
Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to “force any part of Ukraine’s civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.” Russia suggested that the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum and described the Euromaidan as a US-instigated coup.
Yes, the CIA psyop’d over 70% of the country to support joining the EU, then forced yanukovitch to say “screw that we love Russia” and piss everyone off. And the totally organic resistance movement in the east that happened to have russian equipment and… Soldiers? Yeah just the people self determining or whatever.
So what about the ethnic Russians, and the rest of the non-Ukranian speakers?
There was a base of people (30% per your post) who didn’t support this and when the government cracked down on resistance, city centers ended up shelled with artillery for years.
Just a shitty situation to get caught in the middle of, frankly. Did you support NATO intervention against Serbia when it used its military on a breakaway region?
I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).
I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won’t fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there’s still a theme of making it clear that you’re ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward “but should we spend our money?” to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.
I feel like when Harris said that Putin would be sitting in Kyiv, Trump didn’t understand. “Why would he be in Kyiv, Putin would be at home, happier of course” because he’s taking it literally like a fucking idiot.
And yes, Trump, of course Putin would be happier with you in charge when he invaded. The Biden administration gave crucial Intel in the months leading up to the invasion and military support. Harris 100% deserves props for being involved in that.
What does “win” even mean? NATO starting World War 3? Well, they’re getting there.
Da, comrade!
Vatniks gonna vatnik.
You mean Russia starting the conflict that might turn into WW III two years ago?
The conflict started more than a decade ago. Currently it’s a proxy war mostly limited to the territory of Ukraine and Russia. Other countries are in the pipeline.
Oh we know. If Russia wins, Poland is next. Russia salami slicing started in 2014 with its first annexation of part of Ukrainian.
The next target after Russia loses against NATO will be China actually. And then Iran, North Korea. But you’ll get a total nuclear exchange well before, so it’s academical.
So likely next proxy is Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Belorus. Poland is also a possibility, but not at first. Unless Belorus, but then we’re at tactical nukes stage already.
Russia was the aggressor here. Ukraines wanted to go towards the west for a better life and protection from being further invaded by Russia. Putin is of the school of thought that Ukraine isn’t real. But it is the people of Ukraine who decide that.
This war started more than a decade ago. Russian Federation only became a party some two years ago.
This was the start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
Removed by mod
It’s a bit of a stretch to say I’m pro-Russian, and why would I care what Trump says or thinks? He’s a clown who bullshits and contradicts himself all the time.
So you’re NOT pro-Russian? Yes or no?
How is it that you seem to be having a lot of trouble answering anything even vaguely criticizing Russia?
Do you think Russia broke international law with an illegal invasion of Ukraine, which is prohibited, as it’s a war of aggression? Yes or no?
(First off, a gentle reminder that you chose to answer, when you could’ve simply ignored my comment on this post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
You can’t answer, because you support Russia.
Remember when you said there’s “zero chance of Russian propaganda” on Lemmy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_propaganda_in_the_Russian_Federation
The propaganda of the Russian Federation promotes views, perceptions or agendas of the government. The media include state-run outlets and online technologies,[1][2] and may involve using “Soviet-style ‘active measures’ as an element of modern Russian ‘political warfare’”.[3] Notably, contemporary Russian propaganda promotes the cult of personality of Vladimir Putin and positive views of Soviet history.[4] Russia has established a number of organizations, such as the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia’s Interests, the Russian web brigades, and others that engage in political propaganda to promote the views of the Russian government.
Remember — like we’ve discussed previously — that to perpetuate a state’s propaganda, you don’t actually have to be on their payroll, or even cognisant of perpetuating it. However, you very much seem to be. Because you’re making the conscious choice to do everything in your power to avoid the question “are you pro-Russian?”
You simply can not answer a simple yes or no question. Just like Trump, when asked about Ukraine.
This tells everyone all they need to know about you. That you don’t think Russia broke international law by invading Ukraine. You can’t even deny it, because you delude yourself like Trump, that as long as you don’t straight up say “no”, people can’t infer your answer from the context.
You’re on the Russian side of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. You do not think Russia broke international law by invading Ukraine. If you did, you’d be able to say so.
Remember when you kept threatening me that you’re gonna ban me off of a whole instance because I downvoted a comment of yours?
That’s not it works. Vegetarians aren’t following in Hitler’s footsteps. If two people were to have similar stances on something, they didn’t necessarily come to it in the same way, or one from the other. In fact, they don’t even necessarily hold similar stances for similar reasons.
That you don’t think Russia broke international law by invading Ukraine.
Remember when you kept threatening me that you’re gonna ban me off of a whole instance because I downvoted a comment of yours?
How “it” works? What? You mean… comparisons? Yes, they do.
I’ve compared your rhetoric to that of Trump. Nothing in that makes the assertion you believe in any of the same things he does. You’re avoiding a question like him, and like him, you’re deluding yourself that people can’t infer what your stance is from your avoidance. Which is… silly, to say the least.
Here are the only things you post and say “no, that’s not been said”, “you shouldn’t believe this publication”, “that’s not how it works”, “no that’s not what I said”, “no that’s not exactly how I would put it”, etc etc. Yet you absolutely refuse to elaborate on how you would “put” something when ASKED DIRECTLY.
Refusing to answer one question once, because you object to it’s framing, would be understandable, and you could elaborate on why easily within a comment. Systematically avoiding saying whether you’re pro-Russian, whether Russia broke international law by invading Ukraine, whether Russia has indeed ever done anything that has broken international laws (which we could sit here weeks listing, with confirmed sources) is a very clear indicator to your beliefs.
Like I’ve said several times, I’ve asked you for your beliefs. I’ve not stated that I know them. I’ve stated that I know what it means when I’m alone with someone in a lift, there’s a loud “PRRRRRTTT” sound, their white pants go brown and a nasty smelling muck starts coming from their pant leg, even when they loudly say “I didn’t just shit myself”, because I know what shitting one’s self looks like and just saying the words “b-b-but no no that’s not what happened” doesn’t change what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
You’re pretending that you’re not pro-Russian, because you know people are disgusted by people who support Putler’s insane regime. How does it feel being the world’s most massive losers as a nation? If I’m wrong and you’re actually against Putin and the international warcrimes he and Russia are responsible for, you’re very welcome to say so and I’ll apologize for my assumptions.
I’m starting to think you’re hoping that, by being rude & annoying enough, someone will ban you, so you can then blame Russian trolls! Russian trolls! Russian trolls! Or maybe you’re just like this.
$ curl -s 'https://lemmy.ml/api/v3/modlog?limit=50&other_person_id=8274625' \ > | jq 'pick(.removed_comments, .banned_from_community, .banned, .removed_posts) | keys[] as $k | .[$k] | length' \ > | paste -s -d+ - | bc 43 $oh and here’s a direct quote from him, from his link from our earlier chat:
There are approximately zero Russian trolls
support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation.
So you’re pro-Russian in the temporary, tactical sense, in the context of imperialist liberation. And you would be pro-Putin too, but for not believing in great man theory.
