yogthos

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

lol yeah happens way too often

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

It’s typically the same people who couldn’t define what Communism is even if their life depended on it.

yogthos , 1 month ago

pretty sure you just made that up

yogthos , 1 month ago

by politically neutral you mean having biases that match your own presumably

yogthos , 1 month ago

No, you see, it’s only threatening when Russia talks about their nuclear weapons.

yogthos , 1 month ago

Pretty sure removing spines has been US doctrine for the “rules based” world order.

yogthos , 1 month ago

a salad bowl is probably a good analogy for the mental capacity of NAFO trolls

yogthos , 1 month ago

a failed state

yogthos , 1 month ago

lmao chuds downvoting the elephant in the room

yogthos , 1 month ago

imagine thinking that spending billions on a proxy war does not have anything to do with the domestic decline in UK 🤡

yogthos , 1 month ago

15% of UK households went hungry as of February this year, I’m pretty sure 12.5 BILLION pounds could’ve done a lot of them, but instead that money was spent in Ukraine. theguardian.com/…/health-emergency-15-of-uk-house…

The deplorable regime in UK doesn’t give a shit about its own people, let alone Ukrainians.

yogthos , 1 month ago

Assuming this conversation even happened.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

mass shootings and police brutality come to mind

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

Couple that with the deteriorating economic situation in US and rampant racism. People are finally starting to see burgerland for the shithole it really is.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

Exactly, westerners who want Ukrainians to die for their ideals should lead by example.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

No, it’s a very realistic vision of peace and the best one Ukraine can hope for. Putin doesn’t need time to prepare, the offensive is already happening all across the front, and Ukraine is losing the war of attrition as even western media openly admits now. Western support for Ukraine has peaked during the disastrous offensive last year, and that was the best chance Ukraine was going to have to make any changes in this war. Anybody who still can’t get this through their skulls really needs to start engaging with reality.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

I’m sure all that made a lot of sense in your head when you wrote it.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

Lol, why being so aggressive? My skull is ok, thank you.

Hundreds of thousands of lives have already been because of the support for the war from people like you, but that’s just not enough you need more people to die before you accept the reality of the situation.

Putin can stop this war at any moment if he want.

Since that’s obviously not going to happen, I don’t know why you’re regurgitating this talking point that you’ve memorized. Also, the head of NATO has now publicly admitted why the war started

The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.

www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

NYT has also just published the terms of the agreement that could’ve stopped the war 2 months after it started that the west tanked

nytimes.com/…/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

If Putin really wants peace on these terms it’s signs that he feels strongest now because if he would think otherwise, that he could take more lands, he would definitely take this opportunity.

Wrong again, this was an offer that Russia will refer to when Ukraine is no longer in existence to point out that there was a way to save Ukraine that the west rejected. Don’t take it from me though, here is what western military analysts have to say on who will have the upper hand going forward:

rusi.org/…/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-wa…

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

I don’t need anyone to die, it’s not my fault that Russia attacked Ukraine!

You very clearly do since you reject peace that’s on the table. In fact, you’re the kind of person who wants other people to die for your ideals. The worst kind of individual. This war is happening because of the west. Period.

It could’ve been avoided entirely, and it could’ve been stopped two months in, and it could be stopped right now. The west wants to fight this war to the last Ukrainian. There’s even a whole study RAND put out explaining in great detail why US in particular wanted this war www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

But that’s not justify all aggression and horror Russia brings.

This is just useless moralizing that accomplishes nothing and helps nobody. The reality of the situation is that Russia is going to win this war, and the only question is how many people will die or have their lives ruined in the process. What the west is doing is ensuring that this number is as high as possible.

Moreover, Putin started conscription before he sent his treaty to not enlarge NATO.

Moreover, you evidently aren’t aware of the fact that Russia has had compulsory military service since it was part of USSR.

I think he just wanted casus belli for aggression.

The RAND study I linked above explains who wanted casus belli for aggression in black and white.

Why Donbas war started in 2014?

Because US backed nationalists overthrew the legitimate government in Ukraine and started doing ethnic cleansing. This is something that’s pretty well documented.

Putin planned to take control over Ukraine many years earlier and this war is his way to take control by force but it backfired.

This is what’s called historical revisionism.

Sorry, I don’t know what you referring to? Could you elaborate about this offer? Are you referring current offer or some earlier one?

I’m referring to the current offer that was just made days ago, as well as the Istanbul agreement that the west sabotaged.

I get it, Russia is master in attritional war but even they cannot maintain war forever.

Russia doesn’t need to maintain the war forever. Ukraine is literally running out of trained soldiers already, and you can’t create an army by kidnapping people off the street. At some point the inflection point will be reached where there’s simply not enough professional core left in the army to hold things together, and the collapse will happen rapidly at that point the same way it happened to the Germans in WW2.

Furthermore, Russian economy is now growing having become the 4th largest while western economies are going into recessions with domestic unrest becoming sharper by the day. Russia will very obviously outlast the west. Whether Trump or Biden wins the election will not change the direction of travel because the problem the west faces is the its lack of industrial capacity.

yogthos OP , 1 month ago

I think that you are not interested in peace in the first place but in Russia winning (correct me if I’m wrong). You have right for your own vision for reality (at least in some countries…).

I’m explaining to you that there is no reality where Russia does not win this war. This is has been understood by anybody with a functioning brain even before this war started. Plenty of people in the west warned against NATO expansion into Ukraine precisely for this reason. Here is what Obama had to say on the subject all the way back in 2016:

Obama declares Ukraine to be not a core American interest and that he is reluctant to intervene in the country, because Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there. “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.”—President Obama

www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/…/473151/

People who still can’t understand that the west can’t defeat Russia in Ukraine are simply not engaging with the real world.

I don’t to want to try to change your mind but at least take into consideration that this whole conflict is not as black and white situation as you trying to show. There is no such thing as the objective truth. And everybody lies at least at some degree.

There absolutely is such a thing as objective material reality, but you are correct that everybody views reality through their own subjective lens. That doesn’t mean that objective reality doesn’t exist however, or that people can’t come to a consensus on what is actually happening in the world.

In case of the war of Ukraine, regardless of what people believe currently, they will eventually be forced to grapple with the fact that the west lost the war. And I sincerely hope that at that point at least some introspection will happen from people who’ve been cheer leading the war from the western side. I hope you will ask yourself what this was all for, and whether it would’ve been better to avoid the war.

The genocide in Gaza is incidentally another example of an atrocity directly facilitated by the US. The only reason Israel is able to conduct mass murder is thanks to material support and political cover that US provides. This makes the US a direct participant in the genocide.

yogthos , 1 month ago

VPN services

yogthos , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Sure, VPNs are marketed as a security measure, but for most people, the security benefits of VPNs are negligible. VPNs can be useful for hiding your browsing activity from your ISP or for appearing to be in a different country in order to access streaming services, but VPN companies make a lot of misleading claims about the security benefits of their products. For example, some VPN companies claim that their products use “military-grade encryption,” but this is just a marketing term and most websites already use encryption.

Tom Scott did a pretty good video discussing this in more detail www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDQEoe6ZWY

yogthos , 1 month ago

he’s less overtly open about being a fascist than the gop you mean

yogthos , 1 month ago

I do, that’s why I don’t spew nonsense the way you do.

yogthos , 1 month ago

You’re contradicting yourself little buddy, just earlier you were claiming that mass popular support is democracy. But apparently an uprising of the oppressed is just a coup. 🤡

yogthos , 1 month ago

lmfao took you half an hour to come up with this “comeback” 😂

yogthos , 1 month ago

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2ef3ec03-6ab8-4891-9518-9d899553118a.jpeg

yogthos , 1 month ago

I mean you clearly have a compulsion to keep talking to me, so just can’t get enough of that foul tankie opinion I guess. 😂

yogthos , 1 month ago

That’s right, being a foul tankie, I’m completely incapable of independent thought and simply do what my betters tell me like an automaton that I am. Only enlightened dronies are capable of truly independent thinking.

yogthos , 1 month ago

it’s so materialist that the only thing it managed to produce in the past century is a lot of hot air

yogthos , 1 month ago

Nah, I’m going by the actual tangible achievements, or lack of thereof as the case may be, of anarchists based on the teachings of their thinkers.

This was true of the Russian revolution when “all power to the Soviets” became hollow words and “war communism” became the new oppressor of the people.

Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that listening to anarchists regurgitate this nonsense is incredibly offensive. It completely discredits your argument and shows that it is you who’s opining on a subject you have no understanding of. All people like you accomplish is enable capitalist oppression by rejecting real world solutions.

yogthos , 1 month ago

This clearly illustrates that anarchists are not capable of organizing in effective ways that can protect their ideology. The same way anarchists ended up losing to Bolsheviks, they end up losing to capitalists, and fascists. What Bolsheviks achieved was to build a socialist state that was able to defend itself and greatly improve the lives of the working majority. Anarchists simply aren’t capable of doing that as the past century has shown beyond all doubt.

USSR was the first ever attempt at building socialism at scale, and while it may have collapsed, other socialist projects live on today and continue to improve lives of over a billion people on this planet.

yogthos , 1 month ago

What I’m pointing out is that all ideologies compete with others. That’s the reality of the world. If Anarchists are not able to defend the way they want to organize society then their ideology ends up being trampled by others. That’s the world we live in. Calling this victim blaming doesn’t change the material reality of the world.

The difference between anarchists and communists is that the latter actually managed to build functional societies, and to effectively resist capitalism. Anarchists failed to do that, and the reasons for why anarchist approach fails time and again are well understood now.

What Bolsheviks achieved was the betrayal of all who fought for the liberation of the proletariat.

Repeating nonsense over and over will not make it true.

You speak as if the USSR only repressed the forces of reaction, but it also repressed the very same workers it claimed to support when they tried to claim the worker control of the means of production they were promised.

This is an idealist position that’s divorced from realities of the world. USSR existed under siege from global capitalism throughout its whole existence, and that was the reason it was organized the way it was.

yogthos , 1 month ago

The Bolsheviks’ had the ill-gotten might to push their agenda, but might does not make right. The Bolsheviks lied to and used the anarchists to achieve what they did, but anarchists have learned from their past mistakes and will prove you wrong.

No amount of moralizing will change the fact that anarchists fail to organize effectively time and again. If anarchists actually learned anything then we’d see that put into practice. The lack of any actual achievements is the elephant in the room here.

Capitalist aggression did not make necessary the regressive views on social issues and science the USSR had (which resulted in famine), nor the widespread corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency of state officials. You cannot simply excuse all flaws of the USSR by blaming global capitalism.

Yes, it absolutely did as anybody with even minimal historical knowledge would know.

yogthos , 1 month ago

Revolutions require a critical mass of people to come together, and sometimes people who have different vision for the end goal find opportunities to work together as Bolsheviks and anarchists did. Lenin wrote extensively on the subject of when alliances should be formed. MLs don’t have a problem working with anarchists, recognizing that there are common interests and that a time may come where such alliances may need to be rethought. The hate largely comes from the side of anarchists who refuse to work with MLs and spend their time trying to discredit the accomplishments of existing socialist states.

It’s also worth noting that the reality in the west today is that both MLs and anarchists are an insignificant political minority. If the current system does end up collapsing in the near future, then fascism is the most likely outcome. While the left bickers, the right is rapidly growing in power in vast majority of western countries.

yogthos , 1 month ago

You have been discrediting the accomplishments of anarchists while I have been acknowledging the accomplishments of marxists.

I’ve been pointing out that anarchists have not managed to put their ideas into practice on any appreciable scale while Marxists have done this. Ultimately, what I’m telling you is that anarchists need to show how they can actually make their ideas work and withstand the challenges that they face in the real world. This is a problem that anarchists have not been able to solve in my view.

You say that it’s the fault of Bolsheviks that anarchists didn’t get their way in USSR, but there’s no reason to believe that anarchists would’ve fared any better against the capitalist invasion that followed in 1918, or against the nazis a couple of decades later. In fact, the centralization of power that you decried was ultimately what allowed USSR to rapidly industrialize and come out victorious in WW2.

Meanwhile, I completely agree that the socialist projects that Marxists managed to build are not without their own problems. Yet, I think they are a strict improvement over capitalism as imperfect as they may be. My view is that the threat of fascism is very real and that it grows by the day, and in face of that the left should focus on using tools that have been proven to defeat fascism in the past.