Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

True huge causalities are not very good for a leader even an autocratic leader like Putin's popularity and indeed the Soviets stopped caring about the workers from pretty much day one . Lenin never intended to enact Marx's ideas and only wanted power for himself.

Right, and whether a country is democratic or autocratic, a leader ignores public opinion at his own risk.

Yup and you do a good job. Sorry I have not engaged more with your posts

I just think that the focus here should be on the people, and how we prevent this from widening, because a Russian victory here would be disastrous for democracies everywhere. We can discuss the flaws and strengths of systems another time, because while it's germane to the inception of this war, it's not pertinent to how we contain it.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like an advanced military plan. It sounds like something you think up at the minute when the latest causality reports and you realize just how fucked you are.

It's the equivalent of Pee-Wee Herman's "Yeah, I meant to do that." No, you didn't, you meant to seize the country, you failed, and you're backing up and regrouping. Couple that with the Russians also stealing Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" schtick and we've got the makings of a shitty 80s movie, except that people are dying because of this twat in Moscow.

---

I understand and i respect your opinion 

Sorry for getting preachy, and I'll take my mod-hat off.

Oops, there isn't one! I'll STFU then

[The Architect Of Fate]

Right, and whether a country is democratic or autocratic, a leader ignores public opinion at his own risk.

True Tsar Nicholas, Benito Mussolini, King Louis all show that no Autocrat can escape the publics wrath and if Putin thinks he's an exception he's deluded 

I just think that the focus here should be on the people, and how we prevent this from widening, because a Russian victory here would be disastrous for democracies everywhere. We can discuss the flaws and strengths of systems another time, because while it's germane to the inception of this war, it's not pertinent to how we contain it.

Fair point 

It's the equivalent of Pee-Wee Herman's "Yeah, I meant to do that." No, you didn't, you meant to seize the country, you failed, and you're backing up and regrouping. Couple that with the Russians also stealing Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" schtick and we've got the makings of a shitty 80s movie, except that people are dying because of this twat in Moscow.

I wonder how many ways they will reword failure?

Sorry for getting preachy, and I'll take my mod-hat off.

Oops, there isn't one! I'll STFU then 

No problem I have done a fair bit of preaching on this thread myself 

[Anomalocaris]

Seriously, you think the upper leadership of the USSR gave two shits rubbed together about workers?

whether the upper leadership of the USSR ever gave two shits about workers had nothing to to do what so ever with the effects that the social threat posed by the notional promises of Marxist communism had on the behavior of capitalist through the 20th century. 

The false promises of a Soviet state nonetheless mitigated the worst abuses of much of the capitalist system during that period and beyond. It did so by making it credible that excessive capitalist abuse can lead to a social revolution that would be inspired by Marxist promises and be made practical by Soviet support and its alluring albeit false propagandistic example.

Now that Soviet Union is gone for some time and china ditched all pretense of communism but for the hammer and sickle that remains on its national crest,  there is no clear source of support that would make such a social revolution seem practical for the foreseeable future.    you can see the beginning of serious backsliding on issues of income equity and basic protection with the progress of the economic agenda of the right wing, particularly in the US.

Every system has a darker and more abusive side that has the potential to become very dark and abusive indeed.    

 If any system remain unchecked by the need to fend off the machinations of a erstwhile rival to expose the system’s darker and more abusive side in order to undermine the system, then those in power in that system will inevitably find it ever more expedient to allow those darker and more abusive potentials to be fully realized in order ease and secure their own rule.

In a hundred years one might see that fall of the communist antagonist is, in the long run, not near as big a boon for sustained freedom and wide based economic welfare as it might have first seemed in the heady days of 1991.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That doesn't really answer my question, but thanks anyway.

[Anomalocaris]

That doesn't really answer my question, but thanks anyway.

That doubly answered your question.

1. Much less importantly,  the Soviet leadership mostly didn’t give half a shit about workers.

2. Much more importantly,  that is immaterial to the fact that the perceived threat posed by the Soviet system nonetheless prompted major improvement to worker conditions outside the Soviet sphere.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah that actually didn't 

[Rev. Rye]

Somehow, I didn't think Russia could have pissed me off with this horseshit any more. But I just found out that RIA News Agency just posted something that's legit enraging:

On April 3rd, 2022, RIA News Agency published what can only be described fairly as a 21st century rendition of Kurt Hilmar Eitzen’s 1936 talking points summary entitled “Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys” (Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte). For this diary I am going to compare the similar language, ideas and implications between Eitzens (here forward abv KE) piece and Timofy Sergeytsev’s (TS) “What should Russia do with Ukraine?”, the RIA piece in question. My commentary is italicized

Daily KOS article that informed me about this (and made the helpful comparison) here, The RIA article in question here, and The Nazi paper they compared the Ukraine article to here.

And here's an excerpt to get the point acros:

KE: Argument 1: “You say that religion is a private matter. But you fight against the Jewish religion!” Counterargument: “Actually, the Jewish religion is nothing other than a doctrine to preserve the Jewish race.” (Adolf Hitler). “In resisting all government attempts to nationalize them, the Jews build a state within the state (Count Helmuth von Moltke). “To call this state a ‘religion’ was one of the cleverest tricks ever invented.” (Adolf Hitler). “From this first lie that Jewry is a religion, not a race, further lies inevitably follow.” (Adolf Hitler).

TS: “Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construction that does not have its own civilizational content, a subordinate element of an alien and alien civilization. Debanderization by itself will not be enough for denazification - the Bandera element is only a performer and a screen, a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.”

Yes, they're writing an article about how Ukraine needs to stop existing, using arguments used by the Nazis against Jews, and they're using Denazification as a euphemism for the horseshit they're doing to the Ukraine. The hypocrisy levels are well over 9000 here!

Jesse Custer, help a brother out, will you?

[Deesse23]

On April 3rd, 2022, RIA News Agency published what can only be described fairly as a 21st century rendition of Kurt Hilmar Eitzen’s 1936 talking points summary entitled “Ten Responses to Jewish Lackeys” (Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte).  For this diary I am going to compare the similar language, ideas and implications between Eitzens (here forward abv KE) piece and Timofy Sergeytsev’s (TS) “What should Russia do with Ukraine?”, the RIA piece in question.  My commentary is italicized

The correct translation of the german word "Knüppel" is not "argument" but:



And the correct translation of the whole german titel is : "Ten clubs against the jewish lackeys"

[Thumpalumpacus]

That doesn't really answer my question, but thanks anyway.

That doubly answered your question.

I'm glad you think so.

---

Some photojournalism from Ukraine: https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow...-displaced

[The Grand Nudger]

The army that ran roughshod over the Syrians wasn’t an field army.  It was special forces that conducted a large and extended special force operation.

The russians tried to execute special ops in ukraine as well, with the support of a field army, and failed miserably...in their current special operation™.

The west was war weary at the time, and I understand why there was no credible intervention.  The same could be said broadly of the situation in ukraine as it's developed over the last decade.  Still, as I thought then and now, we're implicated in that slaughter..always were, and even more so in that our fears amounting to the supposed competence and potential of russian military forces were unfounded - and that lead directly to the abandonment of a people in syria and now in ukraine to overt and systematic depopulation. On the plus side - some dirtbag nations bought garbage russian equipment on the basis of that last infomercial, and they probably will again on this. Unfortunately, they might be run by competent potentates, willing to make the necessary modifications, train their crews, and maintain said equipment. When those guys get around to executing the locals (and they will) it will be much more difficult to stop them than it ever was, in mere reality, to stop russia from doing the same..and now ofc, they're emboldened.