Russia has announced military exercises near Ukraine that will include deployment drills of tactical nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, six were reported killed in a drone strike on Russia’s Belgorod.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/wzg7g
Russia has announced military exercises near Ukraine that will include deployment drills of tactical nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, six were reported killed in a drone strike on Russia’s Belgorod.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/wzg7g
I feel this is going to be a thing to unpack, but on the one hand, attacks on enemy power infrastructure, even if civilian casualties are a result is fair game in war, for both sides by the way. What is not fair game is levelling a city like Mariupol.
That said, wars of aggression are a crime as per the UN’s standpoint, and only one side is taking territory here.
On the other hand, if UA strikes Russian targets - as they are at war - why is that a NATO escalation? Why is that not a UA escalation? And where else can you escalate after the Russians tried to take their capital and kill their leadership? At this point if UA had Moscow under siege and sent entire regiments of special forces after Putin personally, even that would just be proportionate retaliation.
And that would be a Really Bad Thing™ if France was deploying troops into an unwilling country. Poland, Estonia and Hungary all have US troops stationed there ever since they managed to get the Russian troops out. They have their reasons. UA has all the rights to invite foreign troops as much as they want into their sovereign territory. Russia has no say in who gets to deploy into Ukraine, Ukraine alone does.
It is beyond fucking ridiculous that after sending hundreds of billions of dollars in military equipment to a backwards colony of neo-nazis with the explicit purpose of attacking Russia, to claim that they are acting independently, and that there is no link to NATO.
Storm Shadows, Illegal cluster munitions, Leopards, Abrams, Depleted uranium shells, 155m artillery, and HIMARS are all manufactured from NATO stockpiles. If not for nato, the war would have been over in less than a month, and none of the infrastructure damage in the subsequent two years would have happened, to talk nothing of how the most fertile farmland in Europe is now contaminated thoroughly with landmines, heavy metals, and unexploded bombs.
Russian mainland was not being bombed. Russian mainland is now being bombed. If you do not see how that change escalates the conflict, you would do well to remove your head from the sand. Beyond that, deliberate targeting of civilian areas is a war crime. The electric grid has military significance in a way that random border towns do not. It is asinine to say that Russia is the party deliberately targeting civilians when they launch nationwide missile volleys with <40 civilian deaths. Contrast the ukranian drone attacks on border towns which regularly kill dozens in a single town, and the “”““DAESH””“” attack on the concert hall with almost 200 civilians killed, where the attackers fled towards ukraine in a complete opposite of every other confirmed DAESH attack where the attackers stayed behind to inflict maximum casualties.
A scenario that would 500% result in the use of nuclear weapons is not proportionate retaliation ya dingus.
Were you cheering on the incursion of Saudi forces into Bahrain in 2011? The government asked for the protesters to all be murdered, so it’s a good thing, right? The only factor in the ethics and/or rationality of a military deployment is if the troops were invited. /s
So to be clear, we have gone from “NATO has absolutely nothing to do with this conflict despite the overwhelming majority of offensive materiel coming from them” to “NATO boots on the ground are good because they were invited”. Some logical consistency would be nice, but I suppose that is too much to expect from a nazi apologist.
You made a deeply ignorant post.
Go back to your Tankie safe space.
I didn’t claim there is no link to NATO. NATO is fighting a proxy war against Russian interests in Ukraine, that’s plain as day, just as China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are fighting against NATO interests. I just don’t see that NATO ever threatened military action against nations supplying the Russian side. Do NATO countries fire off weekly nuclear threats against Pakistan, Iran, China or North Korea for sending munitions to Russia? Does Ukraine?
Yes, there are far-right elements in Ukraine, yes, some are even in the government. That doesn’t make the entire nation of Ukraine a “colony of neo-nazis” any more than the Nazbol party existing, or Dugin having had such a cushy place in Russia means Russia is ruled by Nazis.
I thought the party line was three days? Or is that too fantastical a claim nowadays.
Overwhelmingly RUSSIAN landmines, heavy metals from RUSSIAN military machinery, and unexploded RUSSIAN bombs. And the Russians are even proud of having dropped and continuing to drop most of it. You are presenting a false dichotomy. Russia was not obligated to murder all those people, Russia was not obligated to flatten Mariupol, Russia is not obligated to invade Ukraine. Ukraine is obligated to defend itself. Russia has a choice to stop this war, Ukraine does not. Not if it still wants to exist after.
Sure, if all Ukrainians would just shoot themselves in the head, this war would be over sooo much faster. Why can’t they just die already?
It is. If Ukraine retaliated in a proportionate way against Russia, Russia would escalate the conflict. The use of nuclear weapons is an escalation, the threat of nuclear weapons is an escalation, sieging the opponent’s capital after your capital was sieged is the same action returned. If the Ukrainians did to Russia what Russia did to Ukraine, there would already have been a nuclear exchange.
By the way, you like to act as if Russia’s escalations and threats are just elements of nature. If Russia, a nuclear power feels threatened, it will use nuclear weapons, that’s just the way of things. But if France, a nuclear power, has people carrying small arms into battle against invading soldiers, that’s an irresponsible escalation. The threat of shooting a FAMAS at a Russian conscript is an escalation, the threat of shooting an ICBM at Rotterdam is just the way of things.
NATO has a duty to avoid escalating the war, can’t have soldiers in Ukraine, can’t send weapons to Ukraine, because that is an escalation. Russia doing all that isn’t. Please stop the double standard, Russian has as much duty of being human as the rest of us. It’s not a force of nature, it’s people doing despicable things.
I wasn’t aware France would be sending soldiers to help Ukraine violently quell a sectarian protest and uprising of Ukrainian people. My impression is that if they send French soldiers in there, it’s to shoot invading Russian soldiers. I get that Russians don’t always get the difference due to the times they sent soldiers to countries to quell popular (mostly communist by the way) revolutions and install puppets to serve Russian imperialistic goals, but the secret is that if you are in a foreign country, shooting civilians is usually not a good reason to be there.
Never said that. It’s obvious NATO has a vested interest in Ukraine winning the conflict. It’s just NATO is not a direct belligerent in the conflict, just as China, Iran, North Korea or Pakistan aren’t. Otherwise, there would be an arctic front to it, with Russians in Alaska or US troops in Vladivostok.
NATO is the military wing of the global seat of capital. It does not need to threaten to invade as its first course of action. Instead, it first makes economic threats and supports coups.
Has the US instigated sanctions on those countries? Have any of them faced a coup attempt lately? Is one of them frequently bombed by Israel? These things are not separate.
As a general rule I recommend not minimizing Nazis. “Some” is minimizing. There was a period where you couldn’t find a picture of “brave UA soldiers” without a wolfsangel or swastika or sonnenrad, nor a UA politician not shaking hands with them. The head of the MoD said and says Nazi shit all the time and the entire country has been rehabilitating Bandyera as a national hero, putting the committers of pogroms on street signs.
Oh, and don’t forget: ethnically cleansing ethnic Russians for over a decade and violently suppressing the left.
If you defend that shit you are a Nazi sympathizer.
And if this is news to you then why do you think you should have opinions? Isn’t humility better?
If Russia acted like NATO does it would have been over in days, yes. NATO has prolonged this war but not on its own: Russia has shown massive and unexpected restraint, or at least unexpected if you’re used to the tactics of the “civilized” West.
Russia could have, but did not, destroy the entirety of UA’s infrastructure in a few days.
While much of that is disputable it’s also a deflection to avoid the point that was made. You’re falling into a trap in thinking that NATO can’t take blame if Russia does something bad. This is embarrassingly bad logic.
Do you know why Russia invaded Ukraine? You seem to think it had no cause and was not responding to anything for which NATO shares blame.
Ukraine is in a much worse position because it’s following NATO dictates. Its only option is to follow NATO dictates because it hasn’t been an independent country since at least 2014, not because it’s the only strategic option.
Ukraine could have signed a peace deal days into the invasion.
Right now, UA’s future is being thrown away because it’s being used as a proxy for Western interests, not because it’s the best, let alone only, option.
You have it completely reversed. UA is on the path to its own destruction due to the decisions of its captured state. It’s forced into massive debt, its assets sold off to imperialists, is suffering huge losses in population by sending them into a meat grinder commanded by Nazis, and it will still 100% lose this war. There is no serious person that thinks UA will win.
So much hypothetical and make-believe nonsense. It is a flagrant escalation and you should respect yourself more and recognize the obvious.
Russia has been repeatedly threatened and has never used nukes. It’s only a member of NATO that has ever used nukes and it was on two large civilian population centers. A very basic grade school history lesson contradicts you.
Do you see how you had to massage your language to be more passive and therefore avoid the obvious? France entering a war by sending troops is an obvious escalation and per NATO’s own logic is basically dangling a nuclear conflict over everyone’s heads via Article 5.
If you have to use this bad faith logic, don’t you think that means you already kind of know you’re wrong? Deep down? Instead of doubling down and doing Nazi apologetics, which I hope is reluctant, you could instead take a break and resolve this cognitive dissonance, maybe even do some readings.
Not while pretending it’s anything other than a belligerent and escalatory organization. Initially staffed with literal German Nazis by the way. We’re telling you what NATO is and why escalation is bad for Ukrainians and you’re acting like you should be able to go tell teacher that the Russians are hypocrites or something.
My conclusion is that you have an unrealistic idea of what the possible outcomes here are. Only someone who hates Ukrainians or who (even erroneously!) thinks they can win would think “but it’s only fair!” is comparable to their destruction.
You’re also confused about this being a Good Guy vs Bad Guy issue. All of your argumentation is centered around deflecting blame to Russia when you’re presented with basic facts about NATO’s role. Rather than acknowledge, you think it’s great argumentation to say, “Russia bad”, as if there is a person here that’s saying Russia is good. This is a fantasy you’ve constructed to avoid having an adult conversion.
Sounds like your answer to their question is yes: you cheer the Saudi invasion of Bahrain and NATO’s support for it. Truly monstrous.
I suspect you learned of this for the first time during this conversation, but that doesn’t make your response any better. Bloodthirsty LARPing.
Wrong. While there are plenty of dum-dums in NATO, they don’t think UA will win lol. Their actions have consistently led to UA losses in order to try to hurt Russia. NATO countries have decided to sacrifice the Ukrainian people for this project and they keep hoping it will exhaust Russia. At this point, UA will not recover for generations unless Russia takes the whole thing and pumps it full of resources, as NATO countries will just strip the remainder for parts.
Even if it were so, Russia provides it a raison d’être. NATO would not be existing in 10 years if Russia hadn’t been starting wars of aggression, or was not outspokenly adopting a policy of aggression. There is no NATO without a hostile Russia. If NATO is a problem, then Russia is a fundamental part of that problem.
Yeah, so shooting those people and kidnapping their children will provide a great way for them to build a better social consciousness and not double down on chauvinism. The shit Russia is doing to them provides a great environment for a Nazi resurgence. It has to be certainly really helpful to all the good people in Ukraine to argue for less Nazi shit, because there obviously isn’t a clearly definable enemy trying to destroy their national identity and ethnically cleanse them.
There is no justification for levelling cities and kidnapping children. None.
You are arguing against yourself here. You said that if UA killed Putin and sieged Moscow, then you said “that would 500% result in the use of nuclear weapons”. I’m saying that then if UA did what the Russians did to it, made a proportionate response, then Russia would escalate the war. Shooting people who are coming and already shooting at you is not escalation. Threatening to nuke people if they don’t die is.
Please read Article 5. It doesn’t say what you think it says.
Yes, NATO’s goal is that if Russia decides to attack one member, they have to fight all members. And it works in preventing war, how many neighbours has Russia been at war with who weren’t in NATO? How many NATO countries did it attack?
Yes, defending your country from people who burn your cities and steal your children has no point, we should all bow down to Putin. Is that what you’re saying? Apologists for the Russian genocide have been saying this for years now, yet it somehow hadn’t come to pass. I think you are just in a spiral of wishful thinking.
No. Please go and work on your basic reading comprehension.
Yeah, Ukraine has no agency. If you are not just repeating Russian propaganda here, you could try harder to think for yourself.
Like it has always done with its colonies. I grew up in one of them, I know how that looks like. Incompetence, theft and agitation. That’s all Russian-style leadership is capable of.
So yeah, the US may not be the best led country, and it has indeed committed gross crimes against humanity, and an alliance with them may indeed be a deal with the devil. But you can’t ally with Russia, you can only submit to them. The US may swindle you out of your money, but Russia will rape your women and kidnap your children, and by the way, also rob you of your money as well. And Russia is trying its hardest to make sure there is no other way.
I think you just don’t understand what Russia did and is still doing to Eastern Europe, and you are sitting in a cushy chair ideologizing and damning people for ideological impurity, when if you were in their place, you would have to live with a daily fear of being robbed of your dignity, your freedom, and your life, even just for the crime of showing pronouns in your username.
Rather than address the point I made you decided to go on your own Russia Bad tangent.
It seems that you don’t really care that you’re being dishonest. You sure didn’t reply to where I previously pointed out bad faith behavior. That’s something else you share with fascists.
Aside from being stupid and wrong it’s also boring so I’ll probably ignore you pretty soon.
More deflection lol. You just said “yeah”, implying you know you were wrong to minimize UA’s Nazis in high places, but then decided to change the subject rather than honestly accept the fault.
PS if you haven’t noticed I’m ignoring everythy you say after catching an example of bad faith. So far that’s the first sentence in each response!
You didn’t answer my question. I believe in you! Use that big brain to think about what I’m asking!
You think me calling your little stories fantastical nonsense is arguing against myself? It’s starting to look like you have a grab-bag of meningless quips rather than thoughts.
No I didn’t lol. I assume you didn’t read the usernames very carefully and are just very confused about everything all the time.
Feel free to share your thoughts about how I’m wrong. This is how people usually share their knowledge and disagreements - if they actually understand something.
Deflection to avoid the point. Again.
Deflection to avoid the point. Again.
No. Please go and work on your basic reading comprehension.
Hey you’re the one who, rather than directly answering the question (you seem to have trouble giving straight answers), instead started justifying it. You’ve gotta be more clear in your meanings if you implied the polar opposite of your actual view.
So, what is the direct, straight answer to the original question about the Saudis invading Bahrain?
You mentioned earlier that this is a proxy war. Do you know what proxies are? lol.
Your incoherence aside, to the extent that agency means anything when applied to states, UA has quite limited agency, yes. As a state, it was couped about a decade ago and was then plunged into civil war. Its elections are arguably illegitimate because a large minority of the country, the one targeted for ethnic cleansing, hasn’t voted in national elections in a decade. It has already sold off much of its assets and bows to the whims of other states acting against its best interests. Its paramilitaries, now part of the official armed forces, have substantial autonomy and routinely ignore orders. It was easily invaded and would be easily overrun if Russia used NATO methods, i.e. did not treat civilians as humans.
Though I should point out that “agency” is something that people have. Individuals. States don’t work that way. They’re controlled by social interests, political interests. I’ve helped you out by assuming what you really mean is sovereignty.
Anyways, yes, NATO countries made the decisions I mentioned. Are you unfamiliar with the early peace talks? Sounds like it. More pretending.
Where and when did you grow up?
The relationship between the US and UA is not an alliance. It’s far more predatory than that and I’ve given you examples. You ignored them.
If you count the USSR, which you seem to conflate with Russia, then it was literally allied with the US during WWII lol. Possibly the most famous alliance in popular knowledge.
Hey look, a racist Nazi mythology! You sure do repeat a lot of those.
Oh?
The people I’ve damned are Nazis and war criminals.
Ahahahaha what are you talking about?
Such a long post to avoid explaining why the Russian official is justified. Half of what you wrote is in bad faith (not destroying critical infrastructure… Out of good heart? Really?) or simply not relevant (should we invade every fascist government out there? Besides, nothing better to consolidate an authoritarian government than a war, so good job Russia on that front ?)
What Russian official? I haven’t talked about a Russian official nor has the person I responded to said anything about that to me.
It’s kind of funny that while incorrectly labeling what I said as bad faith you actually made some things up to straw man me.
Anyways it’s no bad faith I’m directly telling you that Russian has been relatively restrained in their tactics. They did not target civilian infrastructure as NATO countries repeatedly have, though they are increasingly doing so as part of a ramp up.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with, for example, how civilians were targeted in Iraq for decades, first through the destruction of infrastructure during the Gulf War, then through sanctions that killed millions, then the invasion that further decimated civilian infrastructure and intentionally employed terrorism. Compare the two and get back to me.
What did I say that was not relevant? Have I suggested any countries should be invaded? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
You seem confused.
“Offensive” was autocorrected to “official”
Russians did not destroy infrastructure because they hope to use for themselves (the fact that I have to explain this makes me think engaging with you is a waste of my time). That’s the difference between a war of invasion and the mindless bombing the USA likes to do in whatever conflict they get involve in on the other side if the globe
Typing on phone is annoying, so my messages get a bit terse. But your whole rant previously is about how bad the Ukrainians are. OK, sure. I have not much interest in that. But, how does that justify the Russian attack? How is any of this Ukrainian nenonazi stuff relevant? Russia was never under threat from Ukraine. Even if literal-Hitler was reborn there, how is bombing Kiev helping anyway? Authoritarian governments LOVE wars, it gives them an enemy, it gives them power, it gives them a mean to get rid of political opponents.
So we can either believe Putin a philanthropist ready to sacrifice bravely his troops for no benefit but the de-nazification of a nuke-free, not-in-nato country, or we can recognise this as just a pretext for grabbing land (supported by the preservation of infrastructure). Oh and that part I wrote about authoritarian governments loving war applies to Russia just as well by the way.
After all of this, if Russia is in it for no personal benefit but a moral victory, why are they not withdrawing? After all they have supposedly nothing to gain by continuing the war, since they don’t intend to occupy the country?
Okay so it’s just a straw man then. Can you have this conversation without inventing things for me to defend?
Are you sure? Russians also have a cultural connection to Ukraine, particularly the Kievan Rus. There is/was also a need to manufacture consent for invading a “cousin”. Also, how do you discount them simply being less brutal than the NATO countries that have consistently done far, far, far worse to their targets?
It seems you’d like to avoid the reality that Russia has been so much less brutal. After all, this flies in the face of the (usually racist) narrative about the invasion, which seems to have successfully indoctrinated you into a belief in simplistic camps of good vs. bad. You sure do seem to suffer under the childish illusion that if I push back on the anti-Russia nonsense out there I must be offering a defense of invasion, like I support it. In reality, this is so beside the point that I have never said anything remotely like this, but it is inconceivable to your propagandized worldview that anyone would be doing anything other than being for team A or team B rather than looking at a greater context.
I already gave the example of Iraq, which was two full invasions and a horrific sanctions regime.
No it wasn’t.
See what I mean? You’re limited by your ideology to conceive only a team sports understanding. You can’t imagine that I would (correctly) describe UA from a critical perspective without being pro-SMO. Not only that, you seemingly can’t imagine there being anything else to care about. Only this one thing enters your mind, lol.
I don’t think my framing has been that myopic to leave so much room for interpretation, though. I am pushing back on false imperialist propaganda narratives that have successfully misled those in imperial core countries and among sycophants for those countries. The wider problem is imperialism itself, which first undermined the Soviet Union and contributed to its destruction, then dismantled Eastern Europe, killing tend of millions, and finally isolated Russia et al from the imperial spoils, giving them the third world / peripheral treatment. Capitalist Russia was forced into its current position as paraiah by pushing back against this and attempting to reestablish itself as an independent power (national bourgeois interests) rather than an exploitation factory for the US, UK, Germany etc (intentional bourgeois interests). And in response, it has received a new cold war treatment of isolation and maximum pressure from the groups drawing from the literal legacies of literal Nazi staffing and ideologies and pogroms.
If you want to understand the point of this, aside from the value in not being constantly wrong about geopolitics, it is that you should fight to end this regime of maximum pressure, exploitation, and militarism that your own country, whatever it is, likely either supports, (proximally) benefits from, or has significant movements attempting to do so. I would hope that being consistently wrong and having to literally make things up about what I’m saying to make your arguments easier would be the impetus to become informed and start pointing the right fingers and doing the right work in your own local context. Or maybe just not saying things until you’ve done research?
All of it. The imperialist narrative tries to paper over the coup, the ethnic cleansing, and the nature of the civil war that are proximal root causes of the invasion. The timing and quantity of shelling in Donbas is conspicuous just prior to invasion. So is the Western imposition on killing negotiations right after invasion. These things are all tied together - who funded the neonazis? Why are they in military command? Where and when did they become organized? It all comes back to imperialist projects.
This is absurd. You don’t think NATO encroachment and a civil war on the border is a threat? What world do you live on?
Hitler was just one guy. Naziism was born of the conditions and politics of Germany and its capitalist class, a lashing back against the left that took great inspiration from US empire and genocide.
Anyways, why bomb Kiev? At first, to try and force early contrition and negotiations of a Minsk III type deal. Guess who put a stop to that.
This is a dog whistle for political miseducation. All governments are authoritarian. This includes yours. Many people forget this because they accept, or are ignorant of, where that authority is directed and who has to accept the violence. What is more authoritarian than pushing a coup in UA, for example? Perhaps your government helped with that. Either way, every state is authoritarian.
If the bourgeois that dominate a country don’t want a war, it won’t happen. The main impetus for war is usually a geopolitical struggle that has, at its base, ruling class interests. Russia is a direct threat to the piece of the pie that Western imperialists want for themselves. They want to own and sell, for example, Russia’s oil. They want to have control over the people, resources for which they contend with Russia. Similarly, instability and extraction from countries near Russia benefit the imperialist project but hurt Russia (e.g. Syria). This is a constant and dominant aspect of capitalist geopolitics. They do not let you rest or develop independently. You will be destroyed if you are not aggressive in opposition. There is a massive graveyard of countries that failed to do so sufficiently.
Russia plays a role as a country isolated from the international capitalist pie that faces constant and extreme pressure to become that aforementioned extraction target by international capital. Its international actions are grounded in a reaction to this: the interests of its national bourgeoisie that would aspire to be international were they allowed into that fold.
Obviously there are other, more correct ways to think about this aside from this Great Man Theory false dichotomy.
I assumed you were applying it exclusively to Russia.
Like I said, Russia initially wanted to force a Minsk III, as evidenced by its actions. The Western controllers of UA, who gladly support its Nazi militaries, prevented this. The RF then had to choose between withdrawal with no gains or an attempt to maintain a status quo invasion, occupying the Donbas and further pushing for contrition. This is, further, in the context of the West using their financial nuclear options on Russia (and really, the economies of Western Europe as well) and utterly failing to directly damage Russia, and in fact subsidizing it via higher oil and gas prices on oil they were still easily selling. The status quo was comparatively tolerable. There is the additional outcome of the long attritional war strategy they have undertaken, which is the effective demilitarization of UA over time due to lack of manpower, materials, and economic base. This accomplishes a similar goal to exclusion from NATO. The territory of the Donbas additionally buys a buffer zone from NATO and access to coastal oil reserves.
In short, Western actions made the current trajectory the most favorable one for Russia to head in.
So the government is filled with nazis but it is somehow unfair to say that they are nazis.
You don’t do much reading, do you? I’ve said that the fact that there are Ukrainian Nazis does not mean all Ukrainians are Nazis, and indeed it is a national chauvinistic train of thought that assigns such negative traits to nationalities.
Please stop repeating the lies of far-right governments who would throw you in jail.
Consistently dishonest, I am done replying.
If we assume the latter, why does that justify the initial Russian offensive ? I keep reading tankies saying Russia was threatened by Ukraine but I never see anything to back that up.
“Don’t make me turn this rape into a genocide”