Restaurant Brands International owns Burger King, Tim Hortons, Popeye's Chicken, and Firehouse Subs
Fuck RBI, they are lying war profiteers putting tax revenue in the hand of the Kremlin which it uses to fund it's war of genocide in Ukraine. Do not eat in any of their restaurants
You don’t own franchise partners by definition. They are individually owned restaurants that pay you a fee to use your brand (name, menu, marketing, etc.).
„Shutting down“ here means: Don’t renew these franchise contracts. The restaurants will continue to exist, but they will have to rebrand and be less lucrative.
but they will have to rebrand and be less lucrative.
And what do you do if those Russian franchise owners refuse to rebrand and continue using the BK name, supplies and signage?
Do you stop providing logistical support? Do you cut them off the BK supply chain (shut that down too) and not provide any new menu items / marketing materials?
Edit: At least 10 people didn’t read the fucking article, BK did cut the supply line. This place is just like Reddit, all hurr durr without reading the article.
They are telling you, literally. They should revoke the branding licence, cut every supply lines, and sue them if they continue using the brand (as they would surely do if I just started to have a Burger King without a licence). They don’t do these things. Which is wrong. And that’s what they are doing wrong.
What imaginary supply line are you talking about? Do you think that any food there is not supplied locally? That they import paper wrappings with a logo from the US? Actually the ones probably importing their stuff are sitting in the US, even if it's just plastic trash from China.
It's a name. And if they got told not to use it anymore or they just don't pay anything anymore... what is supposed to happen? Someone goes to Russia and sues them there?
Burger King corporate supplies the wrappers, the branding, the marketing, and the damn product. These franchises don’t “make” anything in house. They reheat par-cooked food that, in this case, BK corporate has delivered to them via truck. BK corporate has had over a year to cut that supply line. They own the branding, and therefore the wrappers.
BK did cut the supply chain logistics. It’s mentioned in the article.
Sue the franchisees? Where? In Russia? In the middle of an economic war with the west? Even if the suit proceeded for some reason, who do you expect the court to rule in favor of?
BK did everything to severe ties. The only thing that remains is to sell their share of the franchise. If they sell now (even if they find a buyer), they likely won’t be paid in anything other than rubles which is useless.
Lol dude, take your own advice. Read the article, about how they’re dragging their feet and didn’t even want to exit in the first place. How much that BK PR team paying you lol.
Also they didn’t say they were cutting supply chain, it says “The spokesperson for RBI said the company was refusing new investment and supply chain support.” Refusing NEW investments is not the same as killing the existing supply chain. Jesus, read.
Nothing, because you just hallucinate supply lines. The franchise pays for the fucking name and that's it. And if they are not allowed to do so anymore, who's going to Russia and sue the owning oligarchs there?
All hexbear users are communists or anarchists of some kind and like we don’t like the west particularly much and users from the instance have been getting into a lot of arguments about politics with default lemmy users - but we also really dislike neoliberal anti-communist gangsters like Putin, and we fucking despise Nazis PMCs like Prigozhin so in this moment it’s a common enemy dying so both groups are happy
Hexbear smoothbrains are happy that daddy Putin murdered a political rival.
This nonsense is like screaming that Charles Dickens writes books about scifi robots in space. It just demonstrates that you’ve completely failed to do even the most basic level of effort to understand what the actual beliefs of anyone on Hexbear are. You just completely make up your own reality based on some cartoon you have in your head.
Like seriously, go and talk to people first before stating such wrong things so matter of factly.
Stop by the news megathread sometime and see/ask for yourself. You probably won’t agree with a lot of stuff (and even that’s partly cause there’s layers of irony caked onto the walls), but it’s not quite as bad as you think.
Because our “free press” is just the “ad fee press” now. Their ONLY concern is how much they can profit off of news coverage. Outrage = clicks/views = ad revenue.
No, it is just a plain defect of capitalistic monetization schemes not aligning with what is good for society. Also, for-profit news stink of corruption and bourgeoisie propaganda with added deficiency of boring clickbait tabloid shitreads more adequate as toilet paper.
We are talking about financing. You calling it “state run” only serves to reveal your own bias. It is very much possible to have non profit independent news as well as public funded news outside of politicians control. We have this in Norway, which is really fucking important because one fucking company has bought all for profit news agencies.
Speaking of glory to the supreme leader, the company in question is also privately held like some sort of Succession fantasy.
Let us not pretend it is that much of an expense to have national public broadcast services. There is also PBS in the US, SVT in Sweden, BBC in the UK and so on. Just admit your point was pointless and the cherry picking was done on your side and move on.
Are you saying I was wrong for assuming you had examples in mind and that your claim was baseless? Either way, using the term supreme leader ironically is top notch lib edgelord rhetoric in the absence of understanding power dynamics.
It is fairly significant, he’s an aggressor in a war currently affecting everything from NATO to inflation. And he has denied access to Western interviewers up until now (in recent times).
Do you not understand the backlash Tucker Carlson is getting for doing this interview? Are you not aware of his history pushing pro-putin talking points? Tucker Carlsons content literally gets reposted on Russian state medias youtube.
The guy wasn’t stupid. He knew going against Putin meant death if he failed. At some point during his attempted coup, he realised it wasn’t going to work and was faced with a choice: die now, or “back down” to scheme his way out of an almost certain death later. Turns out he couldn’t. ¯\༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽/¯ Oh well, nothing of value was lost.
I have nothing to add to your comment other than the fact that your text person clearly has a large nose and I think that’s a stylistic choice and I appreciate that as someone who also has a large nose.
I also don’t have anything to add other than that I really appreciate comments who pay respects to details of other comments. I don’t know, just makes me happy, so thank you for that!
Oh, and fuck this fucking asshole named Putin, may he die a painful and slow death.
I’m not sure he couldn’t have done it if he’d kept driving into Moscow. The defenses of the city were just in shambles. Almost as bad as Denmark in 1940.
However, having tucked tail he should have known better than to come back.
Now there are rumors that Wagner would stage a second coup attempt if the deaths were confirmed (which they are now).
That would be a complete suicide mission now. 2500%.
Yeah, there’s pretty much no chance with the leaders dead, their camp far from Moscow, no surprise factor, and the potential allies like Surovikin pushed from power. It seems like Putin has completely outplayed them.
At some point during his attempted coup, he realised it wasn’t going to work
When was that, exactly? Putin fled, reserve forces were standing by and not fighting Wagner, and he was a day out from an undefended Moscow. Worst case scenario was a protracted civil war, but he still would’ve lived longer than this.
Honestly, none of this makes sense. The fact that he aborted in the first place makes the idea that he was conspiring with Putin the whole time to flush out disloyal elements within the Russian armed forces seem credible… but then why kill him after? I’m not ruling out the possibility that either this was a genuine accident, or it was another false flag and he and his second in command just faked their own deaths.
And if you’re an American there’s no possibility your tax dollars help the victims or stop funding the perpetrators.
Because both of our only two options get a shit ton of political donations from Israel via AIPAC.
The few honest politicians left have spent literal decades trying to make AIPAC register as a foreign agent, but the people who decide that all take AIPAC money.
We investigated trump for Russia connections, but Israel bought both sides, so no one wants investigations into this
Yeah we send missiles because our alliance is based on Israel’s posture with Iran and has fuck all to do with Gaza. Israel could carpet bomb all of Gaza and the West Bank a dozen times over before ending our alliance affected Israel’s posture with Gaza. So, as to Gaza, dropping our support is dropping our leverage. Sorry this doesn’t fit your wildly out of touch and frankly childish narrative.
You’re not wrong about the motivations, but the ends should never justify the means. America’s unwavering support of Israel has led to a huge amount of blowback over the past 70 years
Eh, it’s debatable. He had already shipped Wagner off to Belarus and folded the Wagner troops into the Belarus military, so Wagner was pretty effectively de-fanged at that point. The only thing Putin gained by this was sending a message to anyone else that decided to stand up to him, although if anyone still didn’t understand that Putin tends to assassinate people who displease him they haven’t been paying attention since like 1980 when Putin was still actually KGB. This is very on brand for Putin, although it is a bit novel to apparently go with airplane “crash” rather than his usual standbys of poisoning, “falling” out of windows, or tripping down flights of stairs/elevator shafts and landing on bullets.
On the other hand, it does make Putin look scared and weak that he felt the need to assassinate someone who he had already effectively defeated, without needing to fire a shot at that. I still wonder how he pulled that off. He must have either had some seriously damning dirt on Prigozhin, or else made him one hell of a deal to get him to about face and march right out of Russia. Maybe Putin just straight up threatened to nuke him if he got any closer to Moscow and he decided not to try to call Putin’s bluff.
Nobody even knows what people who say that mean. By context it seems to imply moderate right wingers or some “enlightened centrists” which ironically will also join the choir of calling people that. Just trumpist lingo “woke/lib/commie/feminist bad”
It’s as if leftists do not actually like Putin or any of the other ghouls on the Russian side, but are instead critical of NATO and willing to consider NATO opponents as rational actors instead of cartoon villains.
Ah, so you want newer examples? Fine. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and now Pakistan in Asia, Libya in Africa, Brasil and Bolivia in South America. All in the last twenty years or so.
I think Iraq is a fair point. The rest are weak sauce as fuck for a variety of reasons that I’ll not trouble myself to enumerate.
That said, I myself was never onboard with the US invasion of Iraq or our long time presence in Afghanistan. They were both bullshit and never would have happened had it been up to me.
The rest are weak sauce as fuck for a variety of reasons …
The invasions may have been half-hearted failures, but they still caused enormous suffering. And the Libyan invasion did not fail if I remember correctly.
That said, I myself was never onboard with the US invasion of Iraq or our long time presence in Afghanistan.
I was explaining why a lot of countries would see NATO as the biggest threat. For this, what matters is what NATO governments do. What the people of NATO countries think or do is, while important from a moral point of view, unlikely to be reflected in foreign policy.
Ghouls can be rational actors without not being ghouls.
If a ghoul’s fundamental values involve control, domination and power, doing everything they can in a bid to control a strip of land recently found to have plenty of energy natural resources would be a rational action from their point of view, even if it involves provoking immense suffering upon millions of people. You don’t get to say that US presidents’ actions can only be explained by the hubris of people and systems that want endless growth and control, but Putin’s actions cannot.
If NATO has historically sucked, but countries surrounding the country led by that ghoul rationally feel the need to protect themselves, it’s logical they’ll want to join NATO.
The question here is why you’re far more willing to accept the rationality of Putin than the rationality of his victims when they legitimately ask for NATO’s support to defend themselves, and instead attribute them the category of sheep easily manipulated by NATO rather than accepting their autonomy and sovereignity to make their own decisions.
You don’t get to say that US presidents’ actions can only be explained by the hubris of people and systems that want endless growth and control, but Putin’s actions cannot.
This is the start of a cogent argument but it needs to be followed through.
The flip side of the coin is that you don’t get to accept that “US presidents’ actions can … be explained by … want[ing] endless growth and control” and reject any notion that it would use Ukraine to secure endless growth for itself. This may not be you. But it follows logically for those who understand that the US/NATO is the greatest threat to world peace.
If profit drives Putin, why Ukraine and not another neighbour who hasn’t been courting NATO and accepting western money, weapons, training, etc since at least circa 2014? The answer is because the US chose Ukraine to provoke Russia.
If profit drives Putin, why Ukraine and not another neighbour who hasn’t been courting NATO and accepting western money, weapons, training, etc since at least circa 2014? The answer is because the US chose Ukraine to provoke Russia.
Well, there’s really no reason to use hard power on any country that hasn’t been courting NATO. You can just use soft power (Belarus, Kazakhstan) in that case. Precisely when this ceases to work and a country does starts approaching Russia’s rivals, Russia appears to employ their military power (Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine).
Good points. Soft power seems to have been starting to work in Ukraine, too, until Maidan in 2014. For me, the key thing is ‘approaching Russia’s rivals’.
On the one hand, Russia’s not going to like that. On the other hand, if we accept that Russia exercising soft power in e.g. Belarus and Kazakhstan means hard power isn’t necessary – they’re already within its orbit/under it’s wing – then when e.g. Ukraine approaches the US and turns away from Russia, the US has already effectively taken control of Ukraine before Russia invades. Albeit through soft power.
And that throws a different light on the civil war in which Ukrainian militias are shelling ethnic Russian Ukrainians for being ‘separatists’. Because it means it’s being supported by Russia’s arch-rival, the US, a country well known for such destabilising and provocative antics, as the recent history of West Asia attests.
The Donbas separatists were already well supplied, and the Crimea was already well invaded, by RU, well before the West really started pouring support. I hope this sheds a different light on things for you
I have no idea what timeline you’re working with. The US was meddling in Ukraine since at least 1994. This ramped up in 2005. It supported a coup in 2014. Then the civil war started. The US was involved from before and throughout.
This seems to be a poorly framed question. A big portion of the Ukrainian population is Russian. What does it mean for Russia to meddle in that context?
Those Ukrainians don’t just ‘feel’ Russian they are Russian. They are ethically Russian and Russia issued hundreds of thousands of passports in the region a while back. The idea that someone can only be one ‘nationality’, etc, is a rather US way of looking at things. Loads of countries accept dual citizenship. I also reject the framing that insists or implies that Ukrainians must be of one ethnicity. That concept of an ethno-state is aligned with fascism.
FWIW I do not think that Russia should decide what happens in Ukraine. That’s for Ukrainians to decide. Unfortunately, it’s hard to parse what Ukrainians would want because the US is and has been heavily involved in manipulating politics, the press, and popular opinion. In that case, I kinda reject the question of whether Russia should have a say: the only two current options are who should decide between Russia and NATO. Ukraine deciding on it’s own isn’t really an option.
It’s also tricky now because the separatist regions appear to have not only separated but also joined Russia. This could’ve been avoided if Ukraine had granted those regions more autonomy, as they agreed in Minsk II. As it is, the question now might be ‘Should Russia decide what happens in Russia?’ The lawyers will have fun working whether the law supports that. The answer isn’t clear.
My view would still be no, not in Donetsk and Luhansk; that should be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to decide—if they’re part of Russia and Russia was concerned with their autonomy, Russia can still grant it where Ukraine wouldn’t.
This is all rather idealist, though. Only in communist countries do the ‘people’ decide what happens.
It’s also still a warzone dominated by Russia; there will be an internal struggle between Russian factions. I’m not overly optimistic, considering Spain and Catalan, Britain and Wales, Scotland, and NI, and Kurdistan to Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, the US to Hawaii and Puerto Rico, to name a few similar situations.
Do you think the US should decide what Ukraine does because it’s decided that it’s okay to sacrifice Ukrainians to achieve its geopolitical goals?
I think the Ukrainians should decide what Ukraine does. The idea that their opinion can’t be trusted because ‘they were brainwashed by the CIA’ is quite childish. Manafort made millions lobbying for Russian interests there.
Regarding your ethno-state reasoning: Do you believe the smaller Russian republics should be allowed to leave the federation? Do you think the Russian government would let them?
I don’t know why or how you interpreted what I said as meaning that Ukrainians
can’t be trusted because ‘they were brainwashed by the CIA’[.]
I said it is difficult to parse what Ukrainians want i.e. from what I am told Ukrainians want. The means of information distribution are not owned and controlled by ordinary Ukrainians. Further, almost all the press to which I have access is western; it doesn’t even pretend to be Ukrainian although it frequently pretends to speak for them. They know what they want; I’m just not privy to that information.
On this topic, more broadly, I can recommend a book called Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti. It’s similar to Manufacturing Consent but in my view significantly better because it begins with concrete analysis and moves towards a theory of the political economy of news media whereas Herman and Chomsky begin with a model and set out to illustrate it’s truth.
Starting an analysis of what Ukrainian people think by relying on outputs that are owned and controlled by particular interests (frequently US/western bourgeois interests, inside and outside Ukraine) will not explain what ordinary Ukrainians want. This does not mean that Ukrainians don’t have a view or can’t be trusted to decide their own fate.
I said that Ukraine deciding on it’s own isn’t an option because it’s materially not an option. The west and Russia are already involved. Zelensky cannot do what he wants or what he thinks the majority of Ukrainians want because and for as long as NATO is running the show. To paraphrase a famous quote, we make history but not in conditions that we choose. It seems idealistic to suggest that Ukrainians can just decide what they want to do and have it happen. It also seems idealistic to suggest that Ukrainians would all think the same.
You’ll also note that I said, to quote:
I do not think that Russia should decide what happens in Ukraine. That’s for Ukrainians to decide.
And I reiterated:
…in Donetsk and Luhansk; that should be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to decide[.]
I don’t know what you’re referring to in relation to ‘smaller Russian republics’, I’m afraid. You’ll have to be specific and I would have to do some research. If you’re trying to probe my view on self determination, I’m in favour of self determination but it’s problematic to suggest that the future of any region should be determined exclusively by and for a single ethnicity.
If I wasn’t clear, the concept of an ethnostate is or is dangerously close to being fascist; the idea of breaking up Russia into states along ethnic lines is fascist. In the inverse, this might also apply if Russia expelled all ethnicities other than ethnic Russian from the annexed regions of Ukraine, for example. We’ll have to see how that plays out in the short, medium, and long term.
Before asking me another question, I’m going to say that it feels like you’re asking loaded questions and misinterpreting me to try to catch me out. I’m not going to play along for much longer if it continues.
I’m sorry if these questions seem loaded to you, for me they seem like simple questions.
If you think Zelensky is forced by NATO and cannot decide for himself, why do you think he’s travelling the world asking for more support and weapons than NATO is willing to give? Why not just fold?
Zelensky is not forced by NATO in the sense of being a hostage. Although he does seem to be in over his head. Hence trying to come to a peace deal last year and then being told by NATO, apparently through Boris Johnson, that it wasn’t going to fly.
Since then, especially since the start of the counteroffensive, there have been several reports in US media explaining that the US military pushed Ukraine into the action knowing that it was under supplied and unlikely to achieve its goals. The US ‘hoped’ Ukrainian grit would see the day. Those soldiers are braver than I am for running headfirst through minefields into Russian artillery and defensive lines that Russia had months to prepare. But it’s a careless and tragic use of Ukrainian lives.
The US knows that it has not – likely cannot – supplied Ukraine with what it needs. Neither can the rest of NATO. If Ukraine is to keep fighting, it must look elsewhere. NATO doesn’t have the industry for it. Other US reports confirm this and hint if not confirm that the US interest is not in helping Ukraine to secure it’s independence but to fuel the US economy while trying to undermine the Russian economy. Ukraine is collateral damage for the US. This is the same US that had Ukraine dismantle it’s military through the 90s by insisting on economic reforms attached as conditions to IMF and World Bank loans.
NATO support is waning. Partly because Ukraine is losing. (Partly because the US plans to start a war with China, which will occupy all its attention. In fact, a new cold war may have started this week, according to China and the US.) Zelensky may be able to regain that support but only if things turn around on the battlefield soonish. Until the steps taken to do so clash with US/NATO goals, Zelensky can do what he likes.
It’s not that Zelensky can’t decide for himself. It’s that if he hadn’t already decided to align with the US, he wouldn’t be where he is. He is where he is because his class interests align with those of the US/Anglo-European bourgeoisie.
With this context and clarification of what I meant about the US running the show, I can now address your question.
Seeking weapons outside the NATO-sphere to better achieve NATO goals does not, to be trite, conflict with NATO goals. The US is not going to be upset if Zelensky can get support from elsewhere to keep fighting US enemy #2 (China being enemy #1).
Zelensky is also one man. Just like with Putin, Biden, or anyone else, individual men can’t make decisions of this nature alone.
Can he just fold? Without the support of whoever supports him, if he decides to fold, alone, he’ll be replaced or assassinated or otherwise incapacitated. Does he have the power to fold if he did just take a stand? I’m unsure what the Ukrainian constitution says or of how it will be effected by martial law.
Why do you think NATO support is waning? They’re staring to send fighter planes. The only cracks in the armor seem to be the upcoming US presidential election where the MAGA politicians seem to be pushing for surrender (using the same sick argument “to save Ukrainian lives”).
NATO told him the deal ‘wasn’t going to fly’? NATO told him two things back then : a deal with Russia can’t be trusted (take that as you want, Georgia is proof of this as Russia is just jept pushing for more and more land, peace deal or not) and, much more important : NATO would support their defense until the end if they had to. Of course the surrendermonkeys hated this and try to paint this as ‘blocking a peace deal’.
If the Ukrainian government can’t be trusted to decide on when to surrender, who do you suggest?
I’m at a loss as to how you’re interpreting my words. You say you’re asking simple questions, then you put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them.
If the Ukrainian government can’t be trusted to decide on when to surrender, who do you suggest?
When did I say or imply this?
If you think saving Ukrainian lives isn’t a good reason to find an alternative to war, this is unlikely to become a fruitful discussion.
As long as Russia is unwilling to retreat (let alone pay reparations), you can’t just say “let’s find an alternative to war” without it seeming like a euphemism for Ukraine to surrender its territory.
Which alternative do you propose where the killing ends and Russia doesn’t get to conquer their territory?
I’m glad you’ve brought that up. Because it, too, suggests that Russia invaded Georgia for the same reason: yank meddling and provocation:
Though Georgia is located in a region well within Russia’s historic sphere of influence and is more than 3,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, Bush nevertheless launched an ambitious campaign to bring Georgia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Russians, who had already seen previous U.S. assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastward ignored, found the prospects of NATO expansion to the strategically important and volatile Caucasus region particularly provocative. This inflamed Russian nationalists and Russian military leaders and no doubt strengthened their resolve to maintain their military presence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. …
Amid accusations of widespread corruption and not adequately addressing the country’s growing poverty, Saakashvili himself faced widespread protests in November 2007, to which he responded with severe repression, shutting down independent media, detaining opposition leaders, and sending his security forces to assault largely nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, truncheons, rubber bullets, water cannons, and sonic equipment. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using “excessive” force against protesters and the International Crisis Group warned of growing authoritarianism in the country. Despite this, Saakashvili continued to receive strong support from Washington and still appeared to have majority support within Georgia, winning a snap election in January by a solid majority which – despite some irregularities – was generally thought to be free and fair.
Now where have we seen that kind of thing before—I mean since?
In remarks likely to infuriate the Kremlin, Bush said Ukraine should be invited during this week’s Nato summit in Bucharest to join Nato’s membership action programme, a prelude to full membership.
He also said that there could be no deal with Moscow over the US administration’s contentious plans to locate elements of its controversial missile defence system in eastern Europe.…
Bush said after talks … in Kiev[:] “I strongly believe that Ukraine and Georgia should be given MAP [Membership Action Plans], and there are no tradeoffs - period.”…
Germany and France are leading opposition from within the EU to such a move, arguing that it would needlessly antagonise Russia and provoke a new crisis between Russia and the west. …
In central Kiev, several hundred protesters defied a court ban and shouted anti-Nato slogans in Independence Square, the focal point of the 2004 pro-western “orange revolution” protests, which swept Yushchenko to power. A few thousand protesters were massed in the square today ahead of Bush’s arrival. For many Ukrainians, joining Nato is not a priority. Only 30% of respondents in the former Soviet state support the move.
Who knows why Germany and France changed their tune by the time it came to Ukraine a few years later? We know why Ukrainians wanted the yanks to gtfo; they saw the writing on the wall and didn’t want to be sacrificed for US goals. Unfortunately, corrupt officials sold the people out.
Turns out it’s hard to point to a war that doesn’t have grubby US fingerprints all over it.
So country wants to leave Russian SOI: arm local separatists, wait until country intervenes, then send in military and push for regime change. #noimperialism
It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.
You seem to be under some kind of belief that people should be ashamed of an accurate assessment of NATO, and that it is some sort of mistake to stand by it. This is weird
The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary’s “we came, we saw, he died.” quip?
Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter’s head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:
Hegemon’s have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?
I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
It’s essentially cope for them not just supporting “nominally” socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.
Isn’t Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don’t get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA’s war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
The general “tankie” position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.
There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.
That’s no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here
The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it ‘make less sense’ when it’s correct that they had popular support in the region?
The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.
It’s weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their ‘big brothers’ to “they weren’t using exactly the same weapons so it doesn’t count”.
Nazi’s were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn’t help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi’s anyway.
Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for ‘conquest’, ‘annexation’, ‘empire’ (not that I’m saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn’t relevant, here).
When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it’s vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there’s little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.
We can discuss that if you like. I’ll likely need others to chip in. I’m not proposing that I have all the answers. It’s not something with a clear answer. But we can’t have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what’s being said. It’s just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn’t.
I’ll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you’ve read.
Yeah it’s important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term ‘imperialist’ with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.
Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.
If someone calls Russia ‘imperialist’ in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn’t apply isn’t relevant beyond the fact that there’s confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.
Good points. I also wouldn’t be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.
Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I’d be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone’s done that leg work it’d be Michael Hudson but I’ve not come across it if he has.
There’s a concept called “critical support”, which most “tankies” are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won’t hear much of that criticism publicly though because that’s counterproductive.
Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?
I would avoid saying “lesser evil” for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It’s more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it’s land back or worse.
We want the larger capitalist empire to loose to the smaller capitalist empire because that leads to better outcomes. Saying otherwise is telling half truths at best.
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of “big vs small” is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it’s in no way a defining feature. Sure, I’m absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it’s true. But you minimized the analysis to that. “Framing” is ambiguous and I’m ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now,
It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we’ll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation “ending global imperialism”.
but the framing of “big vs small” is very ignorant
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say “bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST” you said capitalist empire. It’s a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don’t think that’s correct, because I don’t think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That’s why I still hold the point that it’s not just “bigger v smaller” that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.
They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
“From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured”
Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it’s less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.
If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.
“supporting or refusing to criticize” This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.
You’re in a thread with half a dozen comments like “wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?”, followed by a bunch of “tankies” explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.
The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now
Lots of terms need defining. “Illiberal” just means not capitalistic, which yeah that’s all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.
So it’s just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔
I love it when liberals use ‘illiberal’ as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we’re illiberal we’re anti-capitalists!
Don’t whisper it in hushed tones as if we’re being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I’d be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.
The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it’s the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.
“Cartoon villain” here means “a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result.” Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.
The left views NATO as evil not because it’s full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries’ ruling classes.
I think most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is. However Russia is obviously crafting messages to appeal to those on the extremes. When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at. When you see people from the hard right screeching about Ukrainian immigrants or the cost of the war vs America / Europe first then you know they’ve been gotten at.
As for Prigozhin, I think most people, even Russians are glad that he is dead but for different reasons. Seems clear that Putin murdered him for his disloyalty but nobody in Ukraine is going to mourn his loss for the spent force that is Wagner.
most people of the left or right can see the situation for what it is
I couldn’t disagree more. In this thread I have someone telling me Ukraine is currently pushing Russia back despite the front not moving appreciably for nearly a year now. It’s also common to hear Putin described as a mustache-twirling villain who just woke up one day and said “I will conquer the whole of Ukraine in three days,” a take similarly detached from reality.
People think Ukraine has a Nazi problem because western media was shouting about it from the rooftops for a decade before the invasion. Then they only whispered it if they mentioned it at all but they kept on posting pictures of Ukrainian soldiers with Nazi insignia plastered on their faces or their equipment. Or photos of politicians with a portrait of Bandera on the wall above their desk. The gullible liberal journalists didn’t even know what they had to censor out at the start of the war.
Unlike libs, the ‘hard’ left didn’t start looking at Ukraine on the date of the invasion and they didn’t wipe their memories clean of the historical context. A conspiracy involving Russian propagandists isn’t needed to explain this.
Neither are Russian propagandists needed to explain that racist westerners are going to be racist against immigrants and refugees, wherever they’re from.
Ukraine has had a far right problem but lots of countries do. Doesn’t mean it’s more than the fringe as it is in other countries and it’s CERTAINLY not a credible talking point or justification for war to invade a sovereign democracy. And the stupid part is that this shit still goes onto today, even to this comment where you attempt to justify it.
The collective west does have a Nazi problem, it’s acute in Ukraine.
Ukraine has been getting shelled for over 8 years now, it’s been the Ukrainian government doing it, and that specifically has been what provoked the invasion.
It’s just observable reality, idk what’s so hard about remembering events from a few years ago for liberals
Do you realize how sociopathic this sounds? Are all separatists deserving of being bombed by the country they live under? Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia? “You’re being bombed, so just leave”?
Would you say the same to the people of Yemen, or Palestine or Ethiopia?
Depressingly for many libs the answer is yes because guy with blue tie was president and responsible for bombing them. Guy in red tie too but that’s less relevant. Kosovo and Syria are better examples.
But it’s okay for neighbors to pull their neighbors into IMF debt servitude, to say nothing of couping the government because it wasn’t pro-west enough. Really letting the euro chauvinism fly there.
What would happen to you if you started a tv show where you publicly talk about the crimes of your government? It might come as a shock but there are plenty of countries where you can do this without falling out of your window
Sure that’s one good example (although it’s always a bit more risky if you’re starting an armed self defense force). But you might just want to ponder a little bit on why you have to go back 50+ years for it.
Svoboda having one seat in the Rada kind of acute?
As far as general patriotism is concerned sure that’s on an all-time high in Ukraine but guess what, that kind of stuff happens if you get invaded. Which started in 2014, don’t forget that, and Ukraine has been under hybrid attack from Russia since at least 2000, the 90s being only a brief respite from centuries of colonialism and that only because Russia didn’t know WTF it was doing.
The important part is the type of nationalism you see. And that’s much closer to the likes of the SNP than to Nazis.
“general patriotism” I see swastikas, things that sub in for swastikas, iron crosses, and totenkopfs.
You can fuck right off with the “centuries of colonialism” that’s literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.
I thought you guys were the ones who said that portions of a country can unilaterally vote to leave and its okay. That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?
So the Bundeswehr is a Nazi org because it’s using the iron cross as emblem?
You can fuck right off with the “centuries of colonialism” that’s literlly the west repackaging its own history to accuse others of.
So Russia suddenly isn’t European? That would come as news to Europe.
That was what you lot pulled with Serbia, why does it suddenly no longer apply here?
I was a bit too young to have much of an opinion or impact there. In any case very much unlike Ukraine, Serbia actually was genociding people. “Get genocided by your central state, get independence” is more than fair if you ask me.
I was a bit too young to have much of an opinion or impact there. In any case very much unlike Ukraine, Serbia actually was genociding people. “Get genocided by your central state, get independence” is more than fair if you ask me.
The Ukrainian state has been killing civilians indiscriminately in its two breakaway regions, they were just doing it for much longer than it took for any kind of intervention in Serbia.
When the west starts to pretend to care about muslims, you know they’re full of shit about any purported genocides. They went from pretending to care about Kosovar Albanians to murdering millions of muslims over the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
So the Bundeswehr is a Nazi org because it’s using the iron cross as emblem?
It’s pretty funny having iron crosses constantly showing up on all the UA vehicles- I think we all know what they’re going for, they just left off a few lines.
So Russia suddenly isn’t European? That would come as news to Europe.
Russia has not been a part of ‘the west’, certainly not as far as most of the EU is concerned unless you’re trying to be intentionally obtuse
Russia has not been a part of ‘the west’, certainly not as far as most of the EU is concerned unless you’re trying to be intentionally obtuse
It has been a colonial empire for quite a while now. Or do you really think this didn’t happen with military force? That it’s just the natural extent of the Russian nation? Or that the Empire didn’t brutally exploit every new territory they conquered? “Colony” doesn’t mean “overseas”.
Every single larger, or affluent, European country engaged in colonialism.
It’s pretty funny having iron crosses constantly showing up on all the UA vehicles
Were the Russians also doing chattel slavery like the west was for literally hundreds of years? Like sure conditions for serfs weren’t great, but the transatlantic slave trade, the mass genocide of the americas, the subjugation of africa, india and china built the wealth of europe. You’re trying to act like these two things are the same and they’re not
Отъебись ватник блядь.
lmao
seriously though:
The Ukrainian state has been killing civilians indiscriminately in its two breakaway regions
Where’s the lie? You guys think that’s a good thing. Link to more info
They were abhorrent. You’re really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
built the wealth of europe
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills which allowed the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes – as they could be fed. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
Where’s the lie? You guys think that’s a good thing.
You’re accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills allowing less the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
…for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.
As said: The primary cause of Europe’s wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.
Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You’re hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They “invented” all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the ‘natural order’.
Based on how you’re responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.
Yes, and that’s why I point out that it’s silly to say ‘these are both colonial empires’ when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you’re trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.
Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation… tries to colonise.
Also you’re the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.
Also you’re the only one talking about the US, here.
They’re the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.
There’s plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.
The US gets brought up because it’s the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don’t get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn’t exist lmao.
A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in “Russian law”, not “international law”) incorporated parts of the defendant’s territory into itself.
Also there’s exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can’t countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.
Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that.
lmao, one sentence later. There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is.
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it’s only viable because of US support right now.
There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
Kosovo’s secession wasn’t unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can’t be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition,
The US has stocks but they don’t have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
Kosovo’s secession wasn’t unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can’t be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that’s what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only ‘cares’ about muslim life when it’s time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.
There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.
The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal
The US has stocks but they don’t have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
Yes I know, that’s why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.
You’re accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
You already told me to fuck off for pointing out that parts of Ukraine have been getting shelled by its own government for over 8 years, considering that response, yes that was my conclusion.
People were calling for them to intervene immediately after the coup in 2014 and they didn’t. Doesn’t mean that wasn’t still the reason for the intervention years later.
A special electoral operation. Yanukovich reneged on election promises, people didn’t like that and protested, he tried to turn Ukraine into a dictatorship, people liked that even less and protested even more, NATO sent… politicians, to negotiate compromises, protesters wanted to hear nothing about that, Yanukovich fled to his masters in Russia, got removed from office because AWOL, brief interim government, promptly followed by new elections which is how those kinds of iffy situations get solved in democracies.
You used the OSCE as a source previously, pray tell me what does the OSCE say about the following elections?
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don’t give out money.
Also, the loan condition was about stopping to subsidise gas to be sold to consumers at below market price. Not sell off Anatonov or something.
Also the people have spoken. Pray tell, again, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections? Seems to me like the Ukrainian electorate thought that the whole EU and not going bankrupt thing was worth paying realistic utility bills.
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don’t give out money.
weird how when they don’t get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party. Clearly there is no cause and effect that can ever be associated in the liberal mind.
, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections?
The election took place in the context of ongoing armed conflict and other hostilities in the east of the country and the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation. As a consequence, the election could not be organized in Crimea and certain parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are controlled by illegal armed groups.
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people. Again, cause and effect are literally impossible to connect in the liberal mind.
weird how when they don’t get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party.
Care to back that up with data? How does e.g. Argentine keep getting away with things?
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on
And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people.
That’s a very, very wrong take on the Ukrainian electorate. Both politically and I suppose geographically/ethically as the “people’s republics” didn’t at all cover Russian-speaking regions.
Argentina, the largest debtor with the IMF after years of economic crisis, has seen locals lose faith in their currency as inflation hit triple-digits and almost four-in-10 people are below the poverty line.
They’re already in debt hand getting pressured to do austerity, what do you even think is going on in the world?
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
I think the fault lies with the people who ignored any attempts at negotiation (minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements, and went on ramping up for a proxy war anyways)
There was a coup -> there is an active warzone in part of the country -> elections happen (so free and fair) -> The post coup elected government continues shelling the people living in the east anyways -> intervention happens shocked-pikachu
minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements, Both broken by Russia(n backed forces). And exactly those forces also made sure that people can’t vote.
Pretty sure the ceasefire violations were a ‘both sides’ thing, but for most of this fighting one side (Ukraine) has has a distinct advantage in terms of weaponry, considering the irregular forces.
The west was using those peace agreements to build up forces, Merkel literally admitted that on camera.
They were abhorrent. You’re really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
Yes it was bad, still not as bad as chattel slavery, but pretty bad, that’s why it was completely deserved when they had a revolution. Not sure why you keep bringing up the colonization of siberia like it’s relevant to what’s going on now though. Comparing the amount of human life lost in that to the conquest of Americas though is just silly- there’s no comparison and the same American government is still around since then!
They have had several government changes since then. The US has the same constitution since it was doing its shit, the one with slavery in it. (they only do it to prisoners now though, don’t ask too many questions about why they have the highest prison population in the world)
Calling them a ‘colonial empire’ especially from the seat of the worlds largest and most brutal historical colonial empires is laughable. (1/3 of Africa has had a monetary policy run out of Paris to this day, I wonder why they’re kicking them out)
I don’t know what you think I’m trying to justify. You said:
When you see people on the hard left screeching about Ukrainian Nazis or advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at.
I explained that the ‘hard left’ has been concerned about Nazis in Ukraine for a long time. You can understand that communists are going to keep a close eye on countries that ban communist parties. Yes other places have a far right problem too. Communists keep an eye on reactionaries elsewhere as well but it’s hardly germane to a conversation about the circumstances of a war in Ukraine, is it?
It’s not the historical “concern”, it’s the constant parroting of Russian talking points by useful idiots on the far left. “Oh look at these Nazis [showing picture from 2014]”, meanwhile Ukraine is actually a pluralist democracy and has a professional / conscript army fighting an invasion. They’re not Nazis in aggregate or even substantially. It’s sort of shit I’m obviously referring to.
The pictures I’m taking about have been taken and shared since the invasion. This is not ‘historical’ in the sense of pre-dating the invasion.
In any event, if the people you’re talking to are discussing reasons for the invasion, the salient facts are the ones that pre-date the invasion. Nobody had the benefit of being able to see facts or pictures taken after the invasion before it occurred; these newer details could not have factored into the equation beforehand. Which may explain (I have no idea because you’re talking in the abstract and not providing receipts) why people would bring up the (highly relevant) historical context.
Will things improve after the war? It’s hard to say now but considering that Ukraine went after the communist party eight or more years ago, it’s unlikely. The fate of ‘pro-Russian’ parties depends on who wins the war. They’ll either be demonised or praised for being ‘right all along’. You can guess how the narrative will be rewritten, either way.
Unfortunately, the aftermath of this war will be terrible for years. That outlook is even bleaker if Ukraine loses with any kind of quasi-military intact. They are now even more heavily armed than before, they will be pissed at losing, and they will be more battle hardened than ever. So even if Russia wins, the political landscape will look different throughout the region, but it’s unlikely to become a pluralist democracy. (Please notice the ‘ifs’ in this paragraph, I have made no prediction as to who will ‘win’.)
You can refer to whatever you like. You are imputing motive on people for saying things you don’t like. That does not mean that the imputed motive is the real motive. Some people have a more nuanced take on the war than you are willing to accept. Having a nuanced understanding of a complicated issue requires an understanding of as many factors as possible.
Looking at a process (e.g. war) in all its relations (internal, historical, political economic, to start with) is the basic Marxist approach and yet is alien to the liberal/bourgeois approach, so I understand if this is unfamiliar to you. If you want to see whether communists do this kind of thing with any other topic (it’s literally every topic) please pick up almost any Marxist text. Marx’s ‘Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte’ is a good example of this ‘historical materialism’.
I don’t want to impute motive to you, so I’ll just say that I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to erase or apologise for the fact that Ukraine had and has a Nazi problem. Nobody that I know of is claiming that the Nazis are in control of every state civil or military organ. Usually, the claim is that the yanks funded anti-Russian, pro-west separatists and the Nazi militias to provoke Russia. Read that how you will.
I guess you didn’t pay attention. Whenever they post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers there’s a good chance that you will see a Totenkopf or a Black Sun badge. When western news interviews lesser known Ukrainian politicians, there’s a good chance that you will see a Bandera portrait in the background.
The rise of the ukrainian far right has been well documented in western media before the invasion. Hell, google “Western media before February of 2022”
a sovereign democracy[Citation needed]
In fact it’s neither sovereign, since the US couped Ukraine in 2014, nor it is a democracy, but an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country. The contrast with Russia lies in the absence of a single pivotal leader like Putin, and they fully adhere to Western interests.
This doesn’t make the invasion “good” as in “Aragorn is a good guy”. The NATO encroaching makes it understandable. Which is completely different from “good”. Understandable means that there is some kind of rationality at play. Which means it was probably preventable. Which means that some kind of solution is to be had. Hopefully…
spoiler“Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, many of these same institutions had plunged into an Orwellian stampede to persuade the West that Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regiment was suddenly not a problem. It wasn’t pretty. In 2018, The Guardian had published an article titled “Neo-Nazi Groups Recruit Britons to Fight in Ukraine,” in which the Azov Regiment was called “a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia.” Indeed, as late as November 2020, The Guardian was calling Azov a “neo-Nazi extremist movement.” But by February 2023, The Guardian was assuring readers that Azov’s fighters “are now leading the defence of Mariupol, insisting they have shed their previous dubious politics and rapidly becoming Ukrainian heroes.” The campaign believed to have recruited British far-right activists was now a thing of the past. The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.” Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow.” link
I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you’ll read western mainstream narratives more critically.
How funny is this bit though?
“The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow.”
They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?
Azov has been getting denazified ever since it became an official battalion. A huge number of Nazis left, regular people joined, are there still Nazis left? Probably, yes, but they’re not running around with SS runes on their helmets that shit doesn’t fly.
As far as the Wolfangel is concerned: It’s not a clear Nazi symbol. Tons of German tows have it on their coat of arms.
Stop trying to rehabilitate the wolfsangel. If your town had it for three centuries then maybe that’s not nazi symbolism. If you join a nationalist right wing regiment and get it tattooed on yourself, that’s Nazi symbolism.
Think about it like the swastika. If someone is choosing it now, in Europe, in a right wing military organization, they’re nazis, not fans of Indian symbols and culture. Do you know how I can tell?
No. Then we can also throw away pretty much all of Germanic culture as the Nazis appropriated all of it. It would mean we’d let them win after the fact.
It’s more like the number 88: Sure, might be a Nazi, might also be a guy born in 88. People not knowledgeable about Nazi symbolism don’t actually recognise it as Nazi symbolism which is a gigantic difference to the Swastika. But that’s about the Wolfsangel in general.
Regarding Azov, should the logo have been changed? On balance, I say it would’ve been a good idea, especially since it’s 1:1 the Svoboda Wolfsangel.
oh no, not germanic cultutre appropriated by the nazis and wideley seen as dogwhistles! how will the world move on?
your’e absolutely right that the wolfsangel is like the number 88. maybe someone with it in a username or email was born or married that year. but when they’re joining a nationalist right wing militia the number 88 means they’re a nazi
we’re not talking about random people on the street with tee shirts that have wolfsangels on em (btw they’d be nazis too). we’re talking about people joining a famously right wing, nationalist militia in a country with a long history of nazism. they didn’t pick those symbols out because they just love interesting history!
when people choose symbols associated with nazis now they’re nazis. i’m sorry, that’s just reality.
No, we’re not talking about that. You are. All I said about the Wolfsangel is that it’s not an unambigiously nazi symbol, which you just agreed to, the rest is you foaming at the mouth.
Yes, Azov at the beginning was a Nazi org, otherwise it would hardly had to have get denazified when getting rolled into official state structures, now would it. What’s your fucking problem.
My problem is that we’re not talking about this in a vacuum. We aren’t having a nice little hypothetical conversation about weather or not you can judge the town of burgweldel for having a wolfsangel on their town coat of arms.
We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis. Do you want to defend Nazis?
We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis.
Again: Azovs at the beginning was a Nazi org. I never did say anything to the contrary. Yes they absolutely chose it because of its implications.
On the other side of the equation we have plenty of army insignia all over Europe using the Wolfsangel, both historically (pre-Nazi) and contemporarily – it’s a hunting weapon, after all, you shouldn’t be more surprised to see it on military insignia than a sword or bow and arrow.
Should Azov have changed their logo? I do think so. But at the same time it’s not valid to say “Because they still use the same symbol they’re still Nazis”.
Those other regiments aren’t on the other side of the equation because there is no equation. We’re not talking about the whole of semiotics throughout the history of europe, we’re talking about a specific nationalist right wing militia that uses Nazi symbols and ideas.
They chose a symbol to dogwhistle to everyone that they’re Nazis. Now they say they’re not Nazis but they kept the symbol that they chose to low key tell everyone me they’re Nazis.
Do you know what that means? it means they’re still nazis
This isn’t hard to understand. Theres no nuance here. They use the nazi markings knowing they’re nazi markings. They’re Nazis.
They chose a symbol to dogwhistle to everyone that they’re Nazis.
Yes.
Now they say they’re not Nazis but they kept the symbol that they chose to low key tell everyone me they’re Nazis.
No. For the simple reason that there’s no sufficient personal or ideological continuation of “they”. Vast swathes of Nazis left in the process of Azov becoming a regular brigade of the National Guard because they didn’t want to be part of a government-controlled organisation out to de-nazify the thing, regular people joined. Also no further foreigners joined, those get sorted into the foreign legion, part of the army. National guard is run by the ministry of interior, not defence ministry.
The powers that be in the ministry of interior decided not to replace the logo. I have no insight as to their reasoning.
Okay, two different theys, the most recent being the ukranian government, whose decision to keep the name and logo you just can’t fathom.
Let me give a little insight into their reasoning: they want to keep the Nazi regiment.
If you bought a Nazi bar that had to close down because of all the Nazis and you wanted to reopen it as a bar, but without all the Nazis, would you keep the old name and leave the logo the same?
No, of course you wouldn’t. You’d change the name, clean house, completely renovate, change the menu, stop serving jagermiester and even take a strong anti fascist line.
Since the ukranian government didn’t do that it’s obvious they want to keep running the Nazi bar on the dl.
They wanted to keep the fighters who were willing to stay and not be Nazis. Changing the name is pointless it’s named after the Azov Sea, and cleaning house can be done without changing the emblem, especially as it was only a Wolfsangel and not a Swastika. Had it been a Swastika I’d be 110% on your side but it isn’t. As already said: Random people just don’t associate the Wolfsangel with Nazis, you pretty much need to be a Nazi or Antifa to recognise it.
And since when is Jägermeister a Nazi drink. What’s next, Berentzen Saurer Apfel?
The original azov wolfsangel insignia was a Nazi dogwhistle (you agreed with this!), but a little churn and a change of management and the exact same name and insignia are somehow fine?
By people not considering the name and symbol tarnished enough to change? By not considering the symbol more important than the actual lived political practice (or rather lack thereof) in the regiment?
If the new management doesn’t consider at the very least the symbol chosen to appeal to Nazis tarnished enough to change when they take control of the Nazi militia then the new management are Nazis too.
If it was chosen to appeal to Nazis then by not changing it they’re choosing to continue appealing to Nazis!
Yet simultaneously they cracked down on Nazis. Sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it? That’s because you’re putting more meaning into the symbol than others.
Or, differently put: Why don’t you stop arguing symbols and research how Azov troops think in 2023.
And it’s a Nazi banner because… they’re Nazis because they have a Nazi banner?
And no you don’t have to actually talk to them. Plenty of information out there. If you want armed right-wingers to worry about in Ukraine then that’d be Right Sector.
If Nazis advertise with free pudding does that make all pudding eaters Nazis?
this isn’t tough stuff. stop defending nazis.
You’re trying very hard to hold up a connection which is tenable at best. Also, stop fucking insulting people as Nazis for disagreeing with you. Have I expressed anything but disagreement with Nazis here, anywhere? I haven’t for my whole fucking life. Touch grass.
I never called anyone disagreeing with me a Nazi. It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.
Azov marches under a Nazi banner. We both know it’s a Nazi banner because we agreed it was chosen to dogwhistle to nazis. If someone marches under a Nazi banner, would you say they’re a Nazi? If not, what if they march under a Nazi banner for a state that banned all communist parties?
You’re saying I’m defending them. To me that is no different than calling me one, which is a direct and severe insult. I mean I’m German I’m used to foreigners (especially Americans) throwing the term around with abandon, thereby trivialising it so I’m not really taking it personally but that still doesn’t make it right for you to do. Or Antifa praxis: You’re blunting a weapon.
It’s worth noting though that a moderator of this very website called you a Nazi as their reason for removing your post equating the swastika and the unexpounded upon Germanic culture the Nazis appropriated.
Which website? I see nothing being removed here on my end. I also didn’t equate the Swastika to anything, the thing I did was contrast the Wolfsangel to the Swastika. Explained why they’re different.
Oh, just noticed, back to the actual Azov insignia: This is the original thing. When Azov became National Gurad it was replaced with this one. Notice what’s missing? The pretty much only symbol that is 150% unambiguously Nazi, as in invented by them, not appropriated, not used elsewhere: The black sun. I was also incorrect previously, the Wolfsangel isn’t Svoboda’s Wolfsangel any more, the design differs.
Azov is nazis.
You still haven’t given an argument for that but “they use a symbol that also the Nazis used”. They also eat bread, that’s also a thing the Nazis did. To accuse someone of being a Nazi is an allegation which needs a bit more care than semiotic first impressions.
People can also wear Lonsdale without being Nazis. Even showing the “nsda” with an unzippered jacket. Shit tends to be complicated.
If you can actually provide a solid argument that Azov is Nazis I’ll change my mind immediately.
you can’t display their banner in your home country because it’s a nazi symbol.
I could, because it’s not a Nazi symbol. It would be illegal to use the specific style used by the 2nd SS tank division as that is (as the rest of the SS) an organisation which got declared unconstitutional.
In a nutshell: The Wolfsangel is only forbidden if you’re using it specifically to refer to a forbidden organisation. Unlike with other more recognisable symbols it’s not immediately assumed that any use of them refers to such organisations. Which would be a problem as it’s used in coat of arms, in forestry, whatever.
Which brings me to the next thing:
okay, here’s a solid argument:
…no, it wasn’t. If you want to go the way of German laws then tell me why the Azov regiment should be declared unconstitutional, then their symbol would be outlawed. Not the other way round.
You know what is illegal? Running around with a Z flag: Condoning of crimes, to wit, waging war of aggression.
Did you hear that guys? It’s cool, the Nazi militia is totally fine now because they changed the font of their wolfsangel and rotated it 90 degrees. Yeah, that makes them not Nazis. I know! It sounds weird but those are the rules, you can be an out Nazi organization but if you switch to comic sans and throw a little word art action in the mix you’re good.
You’re still insisting that the current Azov is a bunch of Nazis and therefore the wolfsangel needs to be interpreted as a hate symbol and not neutral heraldry. However, you also base them being Nazis on them using the wolfsangel, unwilling (or unable) to bring up actual evidence of actual Nazi shit in today’s Azov.
As I said in the comment that started this whole thread: Azov got denazified by the state. They went in, removed the black sun (hence why it’s very much relevant), they cracked down on Nazi political expression in the regiment, and even before that tons of Nazis left because they didn’t want to be part of a state organisation that would denazify them.
How can you ignore all that? And why that pin-point focus on Azov? There’s other cases such as the unit now known as the 67th Mechanised, formerly right sector. They also kept the symbols of the Ukraine Volunteer Corps. (Though sword to knife and Kalashnikovs to some other assault rifle. Much better graphic design overall).
You already agreed that the Wolfsangel is not a Nazi symbol as such. If it needs to be avoided because Nazis used it, then the blade-and-rifle stuff also needs to be avoided. Tons of stuff needs to be avoided.
Lastly, another question: Do you have a moral issue with Nazis dying at the front.
I never agreed that the wolfsangel isn’t a Nazi symbol,I conceded that in some very rare circumstances it isn’t used that way and followed it immediately with the qualification that we aren’t talking about those circumstances.
The circumstances we are talking about are pretty much the textbook example of it being used as a Nazi dogwhistle. You acknowledged this. This isn’t one of the times where you can claim it’s like finding the wolfsangel in the crest of an old forester family. Simply bringing that up in this context is literally defending Nazis and I’d like you to stop doing that.
If a Nazi organization uses a symbol (any symbol) as a Nazi dogwhistle, and the government comes in, claims to have cleaned house but keeps the name and that symbol, do you not think that raises some red flags? Does it not make you consider the distinct possibility that they’re not doing a thorough job and just slapping a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon?
I’m not gonna pat the ukranian government on the back for removing the black sun, I’m gonna recognize the fact that they did that instead of completely removing all iconography associated with the Nazi regiment, dissolving it, investigating all people involved thoroughly and moving the men and material into other units or forming a new regiment with strict oversight and discipline and a command structure that’s entirely comprised of army personnel.
Because that’s how you “denazify” without incarcerating or killing the Nazis. Really, it’s how you integrate units that aren’t compatible with your force into yourself. The fact that the ukranian government thought it was enough to change the logo but keep the name and the wolfsangel communicates to anyone watching that they don’t see the Nazi regiment as incompatible with themselves, and they just want people in it to keep their heads down.
If you can stop defending Nazis for a second we can have a laugh at how the 67ths patch shows the profile of consumer grade donated ar-15 rifles with magpul flip up sights and everything. At least the volunteer corps is the iconography of irregulars (the rifles that were already around). When people try to blame everything on nato it’s important to remember that there are whole units whose existence is predicated on corporate sponsorship. Shits fucking grim.
This isn’t one of the times where you can claim it’s like finding the wolfsangel in the crest of an old forester family.
Just for the record: It’s not just some ancient thing you might find somewhere. It’s in active use in German heraldry, family crests, insignia of hunter organisations, etc. It’s a (by now outlawed because cruel) weapon to hunt wolves and foxes. Literally means “wolf rod”, “rod” here in the sense of fishing rod, one side of it would be hung up in a tree, while the part with barbs was equipped with a lure. Have a picture of a reconstruction (just the steel, not the gruesome details).
Semiotically I’d say it’s connected to protection, feistiness, because wolves scary monsters and shit (which really isn’t the case but that’s another can of worms). But consider your run of the mill peasant seeing that thing in a noble crest or such and saying “yep they’re keeping us safe”.
Every German one, two, and five cent coin has oak leaves on it. Same for the D-Mark. Germany is the successor state of Nazi Germany. The SS used oak leaves in insignia. Is the Bundesbank a Nazi organisation? Germany as a whole?
If a Nazi organization uses a symbol (any symbol) as a Nazi dogwhistle, and the government comes in, claims to have cleaned house but keeps the name and that symbol, do you not think that raises some red flags? Does it not make you consider the distinct possibility that they’re not doing a thorough job and just slapping a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon?
I have no reason to believe they weren’t thorough. Have you? Aside from assuming they weren’t thorough by not getting rid of the Wolfsangel. These kinds of insignia aren’t just changed will-nilly, there were a significant number of non-Nazis already in Azov who might’ve liked it, it is not considered to be a Nazi symbol in public Ukrainian perception (though it’s not a common heraldic theme, either, it’s simply “some fancy shape”). They did get rid of the black sun, that one is plain and simply indefensible.
dissolving it […] moving the men and material into other units or forming a new regiment
Ukraine is at war. By pulling regiments apart and reconstituting them you severely fuck with their fighting efficiency: Effective operations require trust in your comrades, requires knowing your comrades, how they will react in what situation, it requires prolonged periods of joint training.
In peace times, sure, that’d be the right thing to do. But Ukraine doesn’t have that luxury. Azov has been fighting Russian invaders since 2014, without pause. For quite a while it was the only regiment really fighting because the Ukrainian army was in complete shambles thanks to hybrid Russian warfare fucking with it. You don’t just dissolve your most experienced force while they’re keeping the enemy from running you over.
and a command structure that’s entirely comprised of army personnel.
…it’s not an army unit, but paramilitary police.
The biggest indicator for me, really, of the denazification working is swathes of Nazis simply packing their stuff and leaving. Why the fuck would they have done that if they had buddies in the interior ministry “only removing the black sun but turning a blind eye to the rest”?
I’m just gonna get it out of the way up front: equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry and many pictures of Nazis using it in tattoos, emblems and patches is absurd and can only be interpreted as providing cover and defense for nazis. Stop defending nazis.
I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!
You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.
They didn’t denazify anything and we can both look and see by the symbols and name they used!
equating oak leaves and a symbol with, once again, its own ADL entry
I keep bringing up those examples because you don’t seem to get the point that the thing is not a Swastika. But let me come up with another example, and as the ADL is not really the best source here let’s take the actual authority on the matter, the Bundesverfassungsschutz. Page 26, section 2.13, the Freiheitliche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, featuring its abbreviation “FAP” (sic) inside a cogwheel.
Does that mean that users of the Rust programming logo are now Nazis because letter in cogwheel?
And I can already anticipate the objection: The Rust community didn’t start out as a Nazi org. But then on the flipside Azov got denazified. If Rust did start out as a Nazi org, would we have to get rid of the cogwheel? Or does it get a pass because you can see it used in, among other places, socialist emblems?
You said it yourself, they didn’t do the right thing because they want the Nazis fighting for them.
I didn’t say that. In peace times it would have been the right thing, but Ukraine isn’t at peace, and not dissolving the regiment is necessitated by the war whether the reformed Azov ended up with 80% or 20% Nazis. (According to the Ukrainian state is was something like 20%, and not the really hardcore ones. Presumably also includes Strasserites and all kinds of stuff).
I do have reason to believe they’re just throwing a new coat of paint on the kubelwagon: they’re at war and they want command and control of the Nazi regiment!
Then why go through (enough) denazification to have swathes of Nazis leave?
Also, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with Nazis dying on the front. I fundamentally oppose them running through the streets intimidating people or worse, I oppose them in any legislative capacity, but I don’t mind them holding back an invader. What’s there to loose? They survive and we’re not worse off than before, they die, well, then that’s that.
Or, put differently: Would you support sending them to the front as a penalty battalion?
Bonus: The Verfassungschutz pdf, page 38, section 2.35. The fuckers appropriated the Antifa flags of all things. If you simply outlaw everything they’re using and everything that looks like something they’re using they’re going to appropriate absolutely everything to deny it to us. I wonder if the ADL will copy that one into their list, they’re not always known for having the best of takes.
And while I’m at it, page 82, translated:
The Wolfsangel was an identifying feature of the youth organisation “Junge Front” (JF), which was banned in 1982. Its use in connection with a banned organisation is punishable by law. Independent uses, e.g. in town and club coats of arms are not punishable.
1982. It took the symbol that long to even land on the list, presumably because only then did Nazis stumble across it while looking through SS division logos.
You hear that everybody? The Nazi regiment can keep using their hate symbol! Yeah, because they denazified. How can we tell they denazified? They said so. Those are the rules. Who made the rules? The Germans, why? No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?
If it was Azov which said it I wouldn’t even begin to trust it. But it wasn’t Azov it was Ukrainian state structures.
Who made the rules? The Germans, why?
Because we know where that shit leads and are on top of it. To be on top of it, we actually understand it and don’t simply play symbol association games.
No we can’t trust the ADL. Who says? A German.
That’s rather harsh. But they have had quite some blunders in the past. Heart in the right place but actionist kind of stuff.
A German. No, they’re not on one of the .de instances, why?
So you trust the ukranian state not to be fascist so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis over their actions of leaving the dogwhistle symbol and very well known name.
That’s going way beyond gullible, but if you’re willing to look past the ukranian states’ past actions and take it at its word who am I to judge? I mean, as a German you definitely have plenty of success and skill in recognizing Nazis and keeping them out of power: just look at nato and the frg of olde and afd etc today! Clearly Germans can recognize Nazis and effectively keep them out of power! What was I thinking suggesting that a German was being pedantic and providing a smokescreen for Nazis? There’s no systemic historical precedent for that!
so much that you’ll take their word that there aren’t any Nazis
They never claimed that, the estimation was that about 20% of post-denazification Azov troops had an extreme right wing world view.
just look at nato
What. You might mean the CIA, the Regan administration was straight-up fash.
and the frg of olde
Yeah we had an autumn about that one.
and afd etc today
You mean the party 47% want straight outlawed? You know what’s even more interesting? 10% of AfD voters want to outlaw it!
2/3rds of their poll results are protest voters not sharing their ideology and due to those 10% I think we can be sure that many of those are just doing it in opinion polls, and won’t actually cast ballots for them. Those protest votes are by and large from the east which has a significantly lower precentage of people with closed right-wing world-views than the west.
Certainly brought the whole “the east still has shit political representation” issue back into focus, though OTOH I just have to be a besserwessi and say that noone is fucking stopping them from representing themselves.
Oh, another tidbit: Many AfD voters are on welfare. The AfD implementing their stated policy would move wealth from that group to voters of other parties, so much so normal, but they on top of that want to disenfranchise then, tie voting rights to paying tax. If you’re into psychoanalysis and its recognition of forces such as Nazis as catabolic that’s like chef’s kiss, the fuckers even want to eat themselves.
Also if you dislike the AfD so much why are you joining their ranks by endorsing Russian propaganda?
In any case: Azov is not a German battalion. Have a look at where Svoboda polls. Go over to youtube and watch some Dylan Burns, the man is gay and on the ground there.
Stop defending Nazis.
Stop being an actionist and base your decisions on data and analysis. How you analyse I don’t really care, come up with your own yardsticks but do triple down on applying them thoroughly and consistently.
Oh it’s only 1/5 Nazis! In that case they get to use the wolfsangel but they can’t use the totenkopf until they hit 1/8.
This is absurd. They were Nazis, they used a symbol to appeal to Nazis. The name became synonymous with Nazis. Now the claim is they’re only 1/5 Nazis but it’s okay to use the same symbol and name.
At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute? If they brought the black sun back?
You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis. I’ve been assuming the latter because the former is both sad and frightening.
At this point what would convince you? If their marches included the Bellamy salute?
Unsupervised Nazis would do exactly that, yes. They don’t, so their number is either diluted to a degree where they don’t have cultural impact (Azov grew significantly after that 20% number) and/or the inerior ministry is keeping a lid on things by cracking down on Nazis who do Nazi things.
And I mean this is what it’s about, isn’t it? Whether those Nazis do Nazi things. If they’re Nazis and don’t do Nazi things but instead risk their neck defending the country, why the fuck would anyone be opposed.
In that vein:
You’re either so naive you can’t recognize the “new look, same great taste” strategy or you’re defending Nazis.
I think it’s you who’s protecting Nazis by insisting that they stay away from Russian soldiers. Why do you worry so much about their safety?
You’d have a good point if the ukranian state was doing some kind of gloryless Suicide charge with them. Based on all they’ve said they’re integrating the Nazi militia into the state to fight alongside normal people and become war heroes.
If you’d send them only on suicide missions they wouldn’t cooperate. Still, each Nazi on the front is one non-Nazi not needed at the front.
As to heroes: Needs must. In Germany we’re nuking Nazis in the military from orbit, we’re also disallowing Nazis from fighting in Ukraine’s foreign legions, because we don’t want to have Nazis skilled in combat. That, however, is a secondary concern when you’ve got Russia invading you.
As to heroes the second: The likes of right sector are very unpopular, politically speaking, in Ukraine. There’s plenty of non-Nazi war heroes – another reason to not have Nazis fight alone, so that there’s no valour that they can earn alone. They won’t be able to capitalise on having fought.
Germany would never do what the ukranian state is doing, but they need every fighting man. Never mind the fact that ukranian doctrine has been combined arms warfare with relatively small numbers of soldiers so they’re not actually in a situation where numbers are a huge benefit.
The naziism is a serious problem and it’s good that azov “denazified” but also they’re not popular and it’s no big deal.
They can’t capitalize on having fought and aren’t gaining any standing, but azov was being lauded in the press as defenders of Mariupol.
You’re just saying whatever let’s you keep defending the Nazis.
Now it could be that you want to defend the ukranian state, but you don’t need to rush to its side every time. It can be making grave mistakes and doing the wrong thing by any measure and still be a state you support. Just don’t support the Nazis, that’s all I ask.
Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.
Take a page from the communists and limit yourself to critical support.
Take a page from Antifa and not call a huge organisation Nazi because there’s a couple of Nazis in there.
My main issue, here, from the beginning, has been you trivialising the term. You still do it, without reflection, in an attempt to win an argument on the internet. As if it was some two-sided partisan US politics or such.
Take that same exact page and recognize that if there’s ten liberals at the table with a Nazi there’s eleven Nazis at the table.
An organization that accepts Nazis is a Nazi organization.
I’m not trivializing the fact that the ukranian state actively welcomes Nazis. I’m responding appropriately with revulsion and disdain.
To the extent that there is any path to peace that leaves Donetsk and Luhansk in the control of the ukranian state, it does not hinge on accepting and welcoming Nazis.
If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.
There is no argument to be won here. Anyone reading this thread of comments will wonder why it’s so important that Nazis are accepted. I’m recommending you, as a person who ought to be familiar with the insidious nature of fascism, stop defending Nazis.
If the state is doing so, it’s not out of necessity, but alignment.
So then you’re ready to call Russia a Nazi state over fielding a fuckton of fascist regiments? Have a look at Utkin’s tattoos. Everyone in Russia knew, noone higher up cared.
They’re both liberal fascist states. One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up, the other was put in place by nato to oppose the first when they denied it membership.
Stop deflecting and trying to place me in support or opposition to the members of this absolutely avoidable conflict and most importantly: stop defending nazis.
One was put in place by nato after they realized they couldn’t just carve it up
Oh my sides I dare you to say that in Russia. Bring a stopwatch so you can time how long it takes for you to arrive in a prison camp in Siberia. The FSB doesn’t suffer that kind of talk, “Russia is controlled by its enemies” (from their POV. In reality Russia has exactly one enemy: Itself).
this absolutely avoidable
Absolutely avoidable, true: Russia could stop being imperialist and, for a change, and harkening back to Lenin’s times, focus on developing itself. Like Ukraine did. Which is why the Siloviki in Russia can’t have that happen, it sets a bad precedent for a culturally related people to gets its shit in order, people actually getting what they want, being better off, all that kind of stuff.
Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies, second:
This isn’t about my views on geopolitics, it’s about ohs you need to stop defending Nazis. Do that and we can have a wide ranging conversation about any number of topics.
Okay first things first, I never said Russia was controlled by its enemies,
Explain that to the FSB officer.
But first, stop defending Nazis!
I never defended Nazis, and you have yet to make an argument that doesn’t bog down to “I hate that /u/barsoap is right about symbols”. It’s you who’s trivialising the term.
What’s not a Nazi symbol, the wolfsangel (which you agreed was a Nazi symbol in the context of a right wing militia just a few days ago) or the black sun (whose removal you claimed was semiotic denazification enough)?
Instead of making me dredge up terrible things you’ve said, why not just stop defending Nazis?
Azov isn’t a Nazi org any more, thus the Wolfsangel is fine. Because there was more than semiotic denazification. You also can’t be publicly/actively racist or homophobic and whatever inside Azov Ukraine really cracked down on associated politics as a whole. As said: If Azov was still a Nazi org, why did so many Nazis leave?
And are you seriously asking whether the black sun is a Nazi symbol. The SS used it in an esoteric context, the only other use I’m aware of is use esotericists using it as a specific symbol of evil, “a nightmare that feels like paradise while you’re asleep”, but that’s an obscure corner of an obscure corner. Also, based as fuck.
Of course I’m not asking. I’m responding to your assertion that after 2015 azov wasn’t spreading nazism. They clearly were both incubating and spreading it during that time. I chose the example most apropos to our discussion and brought up their semiotics. You said it (without specification) wasn’t a nazi symbol and I asked which of the two nazi symbols wasn’t one.
So, stop providing cover for the spread of Nazism. Stop defending Nazis.
Now how many Nazis can a group have before the wolfsangel is a problem? We agree that Nazis use it as a dogwhistle, we agree that in the context of a far right militia it’s clearly Nazi imagery. Is it half? If your group is half Nazis you get a pass? One quarter? One singular Nazi? I’d argue that since the context is a far right militia that just fucking last year claimed to have “denazified” the number is zero. You can’t use the same imagery you used last year to appeal to Nazis and credibly claim that it’s different now.
I say that because I’m not gullible and I don’t defend Nazis.
The only sensible use a society can make of nazis is as catapult ammunition. You DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to give fascists actual combat training and military action. That’s how you get Freikorps after the war. Why would you want that?
Because read a bit more into the thread I addressed that. Right-wing bullshit is politically rather less popular in Ukraine than it was in WWI-era Germany. Context matters.
advancing absurd peace deals then they’ve been gotten at.
You do realize that in order to minimize (working class) casualties some kind of peace deal needs to be signed? And in order to sign a peace deal first there needs to be a ceasefire? The sooner the ceasefire starts, the better.
Are you saying that western politicians torpedoing any kind of truce and/or peace deal is “Russian misinfo”?
spoiler>Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April [2022], according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.>“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”>The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.>The apparent revelation raises some key questions: Why did Western leaders want to stop Kyiv from signing a seemingly good deal with Moscow? Do they consider the conflict a proxy war with Russia? And, most importantly, what would it take to get back to a deal?> JACQUES BAUD: * In fact, in my book I mention only Ukrainian sources, and Ukrainian sources said explicitly that Boris Johnson and the West basically prevented a peace agreement. So that’s not an invention from some Putin partisan here the West; that’s also what the Ukrainians felt. And you had a third occasion when that happened, that was in August, when you had this meeting between [Turkish president] Erdoğan and Zelenskyy in Lviv. And here again, Erdoğan offered his services to mediate some negotiation with the Russians, and just a few days after that Boris Johnson came unexpectedly in Kiev, and again, in a very famous press conference he said explicitly, ‘No negotiations with the Russians. We have to fight. There is no room for negotiation with the Russians.’
the cost of the war
Should we ignore the significant human and economic costs of the ongoing war and the support for the military-industrial complex? Why? Is this some kind of noble war against Sauron or what?
Yeah no-one is against a peace deal at this point. Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.
Here’s the kicker: Assuming Russia is willing to negotiate a deal, would it honor that deal? It did, after all, guarantee security in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons, and it broke that commitment.
Ukraine has very good reason to believe that Russia would only use a deal to stop the war as an opportunity to build its strength for another invasion, later. There’s strong evidence that it’s not the capture of separatist territories that is Putin’s goal, but the denial of Ukrainian as a distinct cultural identity, and to prevent it from aligning culturally with the West (even leaving aside the issue of NATO).
If you think the enemy won’t honor a deal, and won’t stop its aggression long-term—and Ukranian leadership has said that that’s exactly what they believe loudly and often—what’s the incentive to negotiate for a ceasefire?
On your first point: Russia’s argument for why they have gone back on the security exchange for Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament is one of the very same arguments NATO uses when claiming that they never promised russia that they wouldn’t expand NATO east of Germany… The US either lies, and denies making the promise (they did) or they say that they promised the soviet union, which is not the same thing as Russia. Ukraine had a discontinuity in government in 2014: this is something they and the EU acknowledged officially during Ukraine’s application to join the EU… So idk if the government of Ukraine today is a distinct entity from the political formation in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but that is what Ukraine and the EU have said as much.
Your first point in your second paragraph is something that could be said of Ukraine/NATO just as well. If anything, Ukraine has completely expended its reserve of weapons and now relies on a dwindling supply of old weapons from NATO… it may have just gone through a 3rd army in this last offensive… if anything a peace agreement would give NATO more time to arm Ukraine for another time when they decide to break the peace agreement… This isn’t based on speculation or a belief that Ukrainians are dishonest (unlike most speculation about Russia) because this is exactly what Angela Merkle said Minsk I & II were for: to use a peace deal to give NATO time to arm Ukraine for war… In order for peace to be achieved, both sides are going to have to accept some sort of good faith. If that can’t be done then more people will continue to have their lives thrown away.
I’ve been following the history of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and NATO’s involvement for decades, so I hear what you’re saying. I just think it’s irrelevant to the prospect of peace talks now. Ukraine now has a people and government who do not want to be part Russia. Whatever good reasons Putin feels he had to launch a pre-emptive invasion are irrelevant. Dubya thought he had a good reason to attack Iraq. I called that, and him, evil. I’m applying the same standards to Putin: The other side’s bad behavior does not excuse his response.
Ukraine is now facing invasion by an enemy that’s made it clear by its actions and rhetoric that the goal is cultural extinction of Ukraine, that’s proved itself faithless in past agreements (whatever its internal reasoning), and that shows no sign of willingness to negotiate. They have the support of the West now; who knows about the future? What is their incentive to sue for peace?
(Withdrawing Western support from Ukraine now to force them to the negotiating table has a high likelihood of resulting in a genocide, given the evidence. The thing that might bring Putin to the negotiation table for actual peace at this point is threats backed more directly by Europe and NATO, and that seems like bad news.)
That is your prerogative to doubt, but as for my understanding, not only has Putin himself said explicitly that there is no Ukrainian identity, but that motive best explains Russian military actions. Other possible motives, e.g. countering NATO or protecting civilians in separatist regions, don’t hold up under critical analysis. (Assuming that Putin is a rational actor.)
The Soviets weren’t removed from Afghanistan any more than we were – they left because they lacked popular support and kept taking losses (because we were arming terrorists who would go on to do 9/11, but I’m sure that type of blowback won’t come from arming Ukranian neo-Nazis!). The parts of Ukraine Russia is occupying largely wanted to leave Ukraine before the war even started. It’s not the same scenario.
Even your best case scenario is “fight a bloody stalemate until one side runs out of troops,” which is incredibly destructive to Ukraine even if they win, and of course they won’t, because the smaller country that can’t just sit back behind extensive defenses isn’t going to win a bloody stalemate.
Just against the one where you let they totalitarian agressor win. Anyone who knows anything about history knows you have to stop those kind of regimes at the earliest possible moment.
So you are against a peace deal? You do know that the fabled ukrainian counteroffensive has failed completely? How many more regular ukrainians should die in hopeless counteroffensives?
Btw it seems like you don’t know what totalitarian means. Actual academic historians tend to avoid this term since the seventies.
The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender. They are gaining ground every day and have all the time they want to kill as many invaders as they want. Let’s see how many men, women and money Putin is prepared to waste before he eventually retreats, Afhganistan style
I’m sorry, are you the same person I’ve been talking to? Because it seems like you haven’t actually read anything I’ve written.
The Ukrainians are the ones who can decide if and when they want to surrender.
Western politicians actively sabotaged peace talks. Read previous comments for sources.
They are gaining ground every day
This has no basis in reality. Even overly optimistic western sources have admitted the failure of the spring counteroffensive.
have all the time they want
How can you be this wrong? They have limited manpower and more and more soldiers die every day. Every week spent warring is a huge burden on their economy.
I’m not gonna answer you again since you are completely out of touch with reality. Even prowar western journalists are more careful with their wording.
You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots? And who is feeding the far left with this crap? Russia because of course they are. And you only have to look at prior deals by Russia to see how believable any peace would be do. Or ask Yevgeny Prigozhin how deals work.
You do realise that a peace deal / ceasefire which involves Ukraine giving up land, sovereignty or anything else is horseshit being pushed around by useful idiots?
The counteroffensive failed spectacularly, even western sources admit this.
How many more people you want to send in the meat grinder?
Here’s an idea: call a ceasefire and let the diplomats negotiate, and let’s see what happens. Let’s see what actual ukrainians want after a few months of negotiation. Maybe Boris Johnson should fuck off. At least people are not dying until then. Outlandish, I know.
And who is feeding the far left with this crap?
Now this is qanon level conspiracy theory. I am against war between capitalist nations in general. On one side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country, and on the other side you have an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country.
Since I live in a NATO country I criticise NATO more, since they are the ruling class above me and there’s enough criticism of Putin around here anyway.
As far as deals go, US/Ukraine isn’t trustworthy either. The Minsk agreement was bullshit. What happened to nord stream btw?
Russia is a country run by cartoon villains. Can you not picture Shoigu sneaking up behind someone with a large round bomb that says ACME on it, only to discover that the fuse has been accidentally lit by a soldiers cigarette?
Classic backtrack by a wholesale narcissist, Marie Antoinette wannabe, whose voicing of their unfiltered thoughts have damaged their profit outlook.
Minerals Council of Australia chairman Andrew Michelmore - had defended him. “Employees have got used to earning the same amount of money but not putting in the same hours”
I expect no less from the oligarchy, especially a fossil fuel oligarch. Remember, these are the sociopaths who own our lives, from corporations to regulators and governments, and are accelerating the destruction of our planet.
They are telling you what they think of the 99+%. You are not a person. You are cattle to fuel their wealth until you can be replaced or discarded for profit. You only exist to generate their wealth and fuel their excess to greater heights. Their only god is greed. They will not think twice about letting you die if it means more resources and power for themselves; many of them would choose to pull the trigger on mass murder than ever redistributing their wealth.
Marie Antoinette was way more of a sympathetic character than this asshole. At least in her case you could explain it away with her being young and sheltered.
Never get on board a helicopter, and never go on board a plane if you just pissed off a guy famous for offing his political enemies. Come on guy, that’s politics 101.
The whole Western political apperatus has been saying Putin doesn’t have the guts to release any of the compromat he holds on them and that he needs them more than they need him.
Somebody should tell them about that software you can use for video teleconferences in case that opens up options for remote work. Can’t remember what it’s called though.
To be fair, I’m certain they have a way to, like, exclude internal conversations from that. They’d be foolish not to have a system to disable collection on some accounts/calls
I’ll argue that you only need to eat five rich. The first two will be shocking, the next two will be surprising that they were eaten despite all the security measures, the fifth being eaten is the reminder that the rich will be eaten.
You’ve taken care of like, 50% of the billionaires parasite issue with those 5, the remaining few will suddenly decide that social welfare programs are a good idea and donate so much that they are no longer billionaires.
The problem is it's just a phrase. You can keep repeating it ad nauseam, but unless it comes with actual strategies to complete a goal... it's as meaningless a phrase as all the rhetoric that right-wingers throw around. And they're much better at it.
I’d like to propose for maximum psychological impact they should be literally eaten using whatever gold plated dishware and diamond knives they’ve got laying around.
Eat the rich and more rich pop up. It takes more than just "let's get rid of who we think the sole problem is and everything will turn out fine". The rich didn't just appear from a vacuum, they've accumulated power and wealth for centuries, if not millennia. "Eating the rich" would require vastly more fundamental changes than just grabbing goods from the nearest billionaire and tossing at "the poors".
The problem is that value is derived from property rather than from work. You earn substantially more by owning a machine than by operating that machine, which rewards people who have money more than people who have skills.
Yes but their is not real answer to that. Even comunism where people own the means of production. Turns into a state where the leaders of that state make more money owning the machines then the workers on those machines.
Any system will always result in a cost to start the industry be it land in the past. Machines in the present or AI in the future. Those who have the resources to provide work for others will always have some form of power. And power will always lead to corruption.
All differing political stratagies do is change the process for gaining that power.
Humanity would probably have to eliminate psycho/sociopathic behavior. Something like 1% of humanity (much higher rate in billionaire and CEO populations, like 25%+).
Like you said, designing a system that prevents them from taking control without pretty draconian measures that are likely to catch many false positives (and still be evaded by skilled psycho/sociopaths) seems pretty difficult.
Maybe AI will be able to filter them out of the population, but that’s full of moral and ethical pitfalls too.
Turns into a state where the leaders of that state make more money owning the machines then the workers on those machines.
Except not really. Corruption is a problem but corruption happens in bourgeois democracy too, the overwhelmingly main source of wealth extraction that we can eliminate is surplus labor value extraction brought about by property relations. State socialism cuts away a massive problem while still retaining smaller ones.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. www.nber.org/system/files/…/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) semanticscholar.org/…/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b…
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2…
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. www.nytimes.com/…/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
The answer is no, because of the fundamental differences in how Japan and China are run.
Japan is modeled off of a capitalist imperialist economy, similar to the US. And as such, it will stagnate and requires imperialism and increasing levels of exploitation to maintain its economy. It does not have the tools or methodology to develop further without imperialism. And thus, it stagnates.
Meanwhile, China is socialist. It uses dialectical materialism to solve social issues and promote cohesion. And instead of profit, it will seek to optimize material conditions, and identify the barriers to doing so, creating a strategy for development. Through Marxian economics, it understands that productivity comes through cooperation and labour, and not profit. Optimization can be performed throughout the supply chain through central planning.
China runs under C—>M—>C, while Japan runs under M—>C—>M.
China does have problems but it also has the tools to solve them, instead of just sweeping it under the rug.
It’s pretty hilarious how I posted sourced information that made you really mad, but since you had no actual counter point to make you just proceeded to expose yourself as a clown by regurgitating personal attacks you’ve memorized. A great way to tell us all that you’re really mad, but too dumb to say anything intelligible on the subject. 😂
The fact that you took the time to write this drivel is pretty hilarious. It’s nice to know that my posts really get under the skin of people like you.
You keep on replying with your childish personal attacks on me here, so clearly you do care. Good of you to expose yourself as an angry loser who attacks random people on the internet. That’s all you are.
I do care that someone might get roped in to your weird agenda and I feel it’s necessary to call you out as the shill you are.
If you had balanced arguments it would be different, but you’re very black and white in your support of China and hatred of the west. When challenged you go straight to “seethe and cope” catchphrase. You don’t have discussions in good faith so there’s no point in discussing with you and nothing you say should be taken at face value.
The only one who isn’t having a discussion in good faith is the one who just follows me around and makes personal attacks because you’re upset with the what I’m saying. Thanks for finally admitting that you really are bothered by what I say loser.
Following you around? Lol you really think you’re that interesting? You post about how great China is every where you go. I don’t need to follow you. Any time I see a pro-China post and/or the words “seethe and cope” it’s you. You’re boring and predictable. Get a life man.
I post about a lot of things, but all you appear to focus on is when I talk about China because seeing positive news about China gets under your skin. You keep telling me to get a life, but here you are making another vapid comment because you just can’t help yourself. The fact that you don’t even realize what a pathetic loser you are is really the cherry on top. Nobody in this thread agrees with you, and your drivel has been downvoted into oblivion here. Take a hint.
LMFAO thanks for letting us know that you don’t even understand how federation works. Go look at what this thread looks like outside your loser instance lemmy.ml/comment/5801787
It’s quite the irony that the guy who posts from an instance that blocks half of lemmyverse talks about people being disconnected from reality. 😂
I don’t get paid to sit on Lemmy all day shilling for China. I’m not too worried about how it all works or how many alt accounts you have downvoting me.
What you should be worried is your mental health buddy. The fact that you spent days harassing a stranger on the internet because you disagree with their politics shows that you’re a deeply troubled individual. I really do feel sorry for you and sincerely hope that you get the help you clearly need.
Why so fragile? All of you liberals are the exact same, you can’t comprehend that the majority of the world doesn’t share your brainless politics so you have a meltdown when your zero-thought analysis doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. No one respects your ideas because you can’t back them up in any sense. You don’t even know where your own ideas come from.
When pressed to explain your viewpoint instead of putting forward anything all you have are personal attacks. You accuse others of being paid to voice these ideas because your pathetic capitalist ideology projects it’s insecurities onto it’s opponents as a defense mechanism. Your ideology is so insecure you believe that big scary dictators are paying people $5 a day to fuck with you on the internet. What kind of schizophrenic hellworld do you live in? You live in a solipsistic echo chamber you constructed to cope with the scary things they show you on the news. Live in the real world with the rest of us when you’re ready.
Seriously. How much do you get paid for shilling China so hard?
Dude, you endlessly post about how awesome China is.
When a communist with a politically-oriented account who posts on communist communities of communist instances makes primarily posts in support of communism and communist countries (any explanation for his motives is beyond the comprehension of the limited and finite human mind, he must have been paid by someone to post that comment):
There’s nothing to call him out on. All that you dronie losers say is “how dare you say a country that I don’t like is good with sources, you’re not allowed to do that!”
“why are we talking about the communist party of china under an article about how the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth to the detriment of the proletariat?”
At all levels of government we’re (worldwide) making due with less while these fucking parasites grow.
So Yogthos provides a counterpoint where a government is investing in the lower rungs of the society instead of squeezing them. If you want to dispute the mentioned facts it’s one thing but the comment is still relevant and not out-of-nowhere China shilling.
This thread is about a dude in Ireland. It has nothing to do with China.
“why are we talking about the communist party of china under an article about how the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth to the detriment of the proletariat?”
The thing is that the comment rings true about the other AES countries also. OP (of the thread, not the post) has identified a problem, and the commies are suggesting a solution to the problem, with statistics that prove it to be viable. You’re dismissing the solution as off-topic, but it’s very relevant. The thread is directly relevant to the article, and the reply is directly relevant to the thread.
Say what you want about the west, but China isn’t what the world should be either.
But it is. In lieu of something better, we should all be like China.
bbc.co.uk
Top