Russia invasion of Ukraine

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

When a nuclear armed power attacks a defenseless nation, there is no way to stop it by force.

I don't think China (during the Korean War), Vietnam or Afganistan ever got the memo. Force seems to have worked out alright for them. Successful military resistance of a nuclear power is not unprecedented. The problem stems is that Putin and his inner circle has bet the farm that conquering Ukraine would be a cakewalk. The fallout of that is entirely on them.

And I do ask again. You think Ukraine continuing to fight is horrible bad wrong that could cause Putin to chimp out, and thus they should be stopped. What do you think the West should be willing to do if Ukraine refuses to stop fighting?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

And I do ask again. You think Ukraine continuing to fight is horrible bad wrong that could cause Putin to chimp out, and thus they should be stopped. What do you think the West should be willing to do if Ukraine refuses to stop fighting?

My guess is than if the West wanted Ukraine to stop fighing, they would stop sending weapons and information on russian position or maybe just menace to do so.

As far as the diplomacy issue, even in the best case scenario (Ukraine end up puching back russian troop outside its border and maybe even getting back Crimea) winning in the battlefield won't end the conflict, there willl still be a need for a ceasefire or peace treaty. Outside of a total victory on either side or Putin ordering all his troops to get back do anyone see a scenario where diplomacy end-up being of some use?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

My guess is than if the West wanted Ukraine to stop fighing, they would stop sending weapons and information on russian position or maybe just menace to do so.

That would not prevent Ukraine from continue pushing the invading army out, it would only mean it would turn into afghanitan 2.0, where it will take Ukraine years (and not months) to kick putin's potemkin army out.

As far as the diplomacy issue, even in the best case scenario (Ukraine end up puching back russian troop outside its border and maybe even getting back Crimea) winning in the battlefield won't end the conflict, there willl still be a need for a ceasefire or peace treaty.

Not necessarily, none was signed between the USSR and Japan after WWII.

Outside of a total victory on either side or Putin ordering all his troops to get back do anyone see a scenario where diplomacy end-up being of some use?

Diplomacy will be necessary once the invasion ends for Russia to get sanctions lifted. But that wont happen on putin's watch, who will go the north korea route no doubt.

[Key Board]

The war will end one way or another. It's a war of attrition

Either the Russian war machine and economy bulks

Or aid towards Ukraine fizzles out. Ukraine will fight to the last Ukrainian either way, if they have to. There's too much bad blood by now.

Other time sensitive things to consider: Europe's policy on Russian gas, European elections, US elections, Chinese response

I am on the side on Ukraine, because as said. They won't stop at Ukraine, and also because Russia has exported a lot of damaging disinformation this past decade. It really is detrimental to my future if Russia succeeds.

//

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Nachtwandler

Russian government pays pretty huge sums for propaganda in the Internet. I don't know if this guy being paid, influenced by all that paid bullshit or just another conspiacy theorist. Either way, it is not worth listening to their nonsence.

What's insidious is how it tries to mess with people's common sense and flip their mind so that somehow injustice is just or for some "greater good." Once someone's mind is flipped that way, they'll believe all sorts of things.

What we know for sure is that tyrants, abusers, and bullies do not need a "just cause" for their resentment and grievances. It's a way of securing their power. Whatever past injustices may exist do not excuse or make up for current injustice, and offering that excuse is itself a manipulation tactic.

It brings to mind some of the lies abuse victims believe (fed to them by their abuser) that prevent them from escaping their abusive situation:

1) That somehow it's their fault or they deserve it.
2) That if you give into their unreasonable demands they'll calm down and be more reasonable.
3) That it's in their best interest to put up with it to prevent some sort of other perceived risk (to order, to propriety, to others, etc.).
4) That it's hopeless and there's no way to escape.

This propaganda in this case is exactly the same: That Western society has fomented their resentment, we have to give them what they want to prevent nuclear war, and if we don't society as we know it will end. But there is no end to what extent of abuse this "logic" will allow -- people can always find more grounds for "resentment" and create flimsy logic to justify it. We only need to look at history to see how this plays out.

The fact that it's presented as some form of "realism" -- to squash everyone's "idealistic view" -- is just a sort of gaslighting. It's trying to wear you down, over time, to question your sense of right and wrong. You should immediately question someone who appeals to "realism" when what they're saying seems lacking in common sense.

Obviously in war there is propaganda on all sides, and everyone needs to be aware of this. But be especially weary of insidious propaganda like this that is trying to convince you to accept injustice as an inevitability for the greater good. Bullies will never be appeased or pacified, no matter how often we give into them. If they want to seek reparations for past injustices, there are other ways without causing new injustices. And even if your own country was a participant in injustice in the past, it doesn't mean you have to be okay with it (or that you ever were okay with it before) or that you have to accept that others must be allowed to do whatever they want as tit-for-tat. Two wrongs don't make a right, and acceptance of the "inevitability" of injustice is not the path to lasting peace. Even though the eventual solution might end up being an imperfect arrangement, people should continue believing in and advocating for the best solution -- we aren't the negotiators, we are the public opinion.


Anyway, going forward, we will not allow propaganda of this nature to be posted here. I've also removed a past post; I may remove others. That doesn't mean we won't allow multiple views to be posted about the war (again, recognizing there is propaganda from many factions), but there is a limit to what can be considered reasonable discourse.

[MeoTwister5]

Blaming Ukraine for starting the war because it was looking for mutual defense treaties with organizations like NATO is like blaming a domestic abuse victim that it's their fault they're getting beaten by their partners because they were window shopping for a taser.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Obviously in war there is propaganda on all sides

I could be wrong, but to me it does not seem like the west has a propaganda campaign. Which makes sense since unlike the Iraq wars, there are no NATO boots on the ground. Also, I don't remember any campaign on the mass media when the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

Of course, there is information filtering going around, this month there was a wide demonetization of youtube of channels that cover the invasion, you don't want a video of Ukrainian troops dying going viral, let the masses think of war as a videogame. Even videos of orcs dying like cockroaches in the battlefield might generate sympathy for them.

A favorite talking point of the kremlin mouthpieces is how Ukraine is corrupt, which is not a lie, but it is also a half truth. Ukraine will need to prune corruption to become a member of the EU & NATO and this war is the perfect opportunity to make the required reforms. But you know what country is even more corrupt, russia of course and you can bet that corruption levels would have simply increased if the invasion had been successful.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

A favorite talking point of the kremlin mouthpieces is how Ukraine is corrupt, which is not a lie, but it is also a half truth. Ukraine will need to prune corruption to become a member of the EU & NATO and this war is the perfect opportunity to make the required reforms. But you know what country is even more corrupt, russia of course and you can bet that corruption levels would have simply increased if the invasion had been successful.

I suppose it's less a half truth and more severely lacking context. Ukraine certainly has a lot of corruption problems, but it's probably worth considering that not all corruption is equal as far as how damaging it is. Both to general civil society, and how it affects a countries ability to respond to catastrophic disasters (you know, like a war).

Corruption where ministers and officials accept bribes to say get work done faster or at a higher quality is bad, but things are still *working*. Just with a problematic inefficiency. This is quite different than if the corrupt officials are say, literally selling government property on the black market for a fraction of market value, but huge personal profit (cause *they* didn't pay for it, the tax payers did)? That's *hugely* debilitating for the effective governance and business in peace time, and it can have lethal consequences if you've been pulling stunts like this before and during a major war.

And we've seen plenty of evidence that the Russian government (the military especially) is really prone to this especially toxic latter kind of corruption. A major reason why many Russian vehicles ran out of gas early in the war is because one of their generals sold off significant amount of their fuel while they were hanging in Belarus. And more recently the Russian government has admitted that hundreds of thousands of military winter uniforms have been *misplaced*, likely due to Russian Army Supply quartermasters for the last 20 years making a steady profit of selling them on the sly to military surplus and online retailers worldwide.

Ukraine almost certainly has serious problems with corruption, but there's reason to believe it's not quite metastasized the way it has in many parts of Russia.

[ramlaen]

Today's lesson is that you are not immune to propaganda.

[mangamuscle]

In putin's russia, music snitches on you!

https://trendingnewsbuzzer.com/in-mo...ic-in-the-car/

a single father who is raising four children was fined and arrested for 15 days. He listened to Ukrainian music in the car

[Roger Rambo]

Interesting couple of videos that a Russian Youtuber did, where he goes over some interesting facts about how Russian taxation and budget allotment work. Seems rather relevant considering that hypothetically 4 of Ukrane's Oblasts have been annexed by Russia.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/fc-ZvstkTpQ

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

YouTube

https://youtu.be/9OVlqneKhQU

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

The big takeaway from it and a prior video is that the city and regional governments are budgets are ultimately beholden to money from the Federal budget to meet ends meet. The Russian Federal Budget overwhelmingly comes from having a monopoly on sales tax and resource extraction taxes (Gas/Oil), which the Federal government (not the regions where those sales taxes or resources were extracted) get 100% of, and ultimately decides how it gets spent. Inexplicably, the Moscow and Saint Petersburg enjoy massive economic wealth relative to all the other regions in the country under this system.

Maybe gives some context to why the EU looks so attractive to Ukraine.

[Yu Ominae]

Looks like I'm hearing some things going on in Belarus with Belarusian troops being mobilized.

[MeoTwister5]

"Covert Mobilization" allegedly.

[OH&S]

Musk's SpaceX says it can no longer pay for critical satellite services in Ukraine, asks Pentagon to pick up the tab

So far roughly 20,000 Starlink satellite units have been donated to Ukraine, with Musk tweeting on Friday the "Operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year."
...
Musk recently tweeted a controversial peace plan that would have Ukraine give up Crimea and control over the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
...
Though Musk has received widespread acclaim and thanks for responding to requests for Starlink service to Ukraine right as the war was starting, in reality, the vast majority of the 20,000 terminals have received full or partial funding from outside sources, including the US government, the UK and Poland, according to the SpaceX letter to the Pentagon.

What a surprise.

In addition to this, remember how Musk bizarrely gave his two cents on the whole war by offering a peace plan? An accusation has been levied at him that he had spoken to Putin before tweeting out the peace plan.

At this point its a he said, she said type situation on whether that's the case. BUT its strongly plausible due to the wording of a particular part of his tweet.

- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

That's a bizarre statement to make for someone who has no ties to the region. Hopefully Nachtwandler can give some insight into this but that bolded part sounds like it came directly from the mouth of a Russian nationalist; aka the Kremlin or Putin.

If that's the case, then Elon's "peace plan" is just Putin's direct list of wants for the remainder of the conflict with his control over the annexed regions hidden behind "referendums". People really fell for this hook, line and sinker.

I guess it doesn't matter too much considering Ukraine is currently pushing back the Russian forces. But man, this is all just wild.

[Ithekro]

'What was stolen by force shall be returned'. Within the timeframe this remains logical. Much older scores seem petty as generations go by, but within a decade, sure.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by OH&S

Musk's SpaceX says it can no longer pay for critical satellite services in Ukraine, asks Pentagon to pick up the tab



What a surprise.

A surprise that SpaceX cannot operate in the red indefinitely, that the request was made back in September or that SpaceX really has been covering the majority of the cost of critical communication equipment that Ukraine asked for?

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I could be wrong, but to me it does not seem like the west has a propaganda campaign.

I won't proclaim to know the full objective truth by any means, and I assume by default that there is some degree of at least "message shaping" (editorializing) via omission if nothing else. I think the general assumption is that the average person lacks the critical thinking to handle nuanced discussion (which my personal observation says is, sadly, probably not wrong on the whole), so messages tend to be simplified to be as black and white as possible.

The problem with this is that the over-simplification then causes some people to "seek the truth" on their own which leads them straight into the arms of true propaganda. Conspiracy-minded people believe "if they're hiding this from me, it (and all related implications/insinuations) must be the truth!"... but this too lacks an amazing amount of nuance. (Maybe they don't start out by believing this, but the further down the rabbit hole you go...) Consider what the other side is, itself, withholding when telling its side of the story, especially when contrary to considerable objective evidence.

So as someone who believes in at least trying to see an issue from all sides, I'll never believe anyone has a monopoly on objective truth. However, this does not mean that all sides are equally valid or true (which is the classic "both-sides-ism" you see often in the U.S.). For instance, it may well be that Russia has legitimate concerns about NATO getting too close to comfort, but this does not excuse or justify their own unilateral decision to invade and annex. There are plenty of other ways to deal with concerns and grievances. So the kind of "we have to assume both sides have an equally valid viewpoint and both need to compromise equally" argument that some people are purporting is naïve, fallacious, and really just benefits the person committed the more egregious wrongs at the expense of the party that has been more wronged. This is why the judicial process is striving to arrive at the truth, not just some artificially-fabricated compromise. The truth is often messier than stories make it out to be, but the fact that the whole truth isn't visible by default isn't necessarily a sign that the other side is 100% right either (or that the truth somehow just isn't knowable at all).

(And of course, I'm not free of bias myself based on my own perspective and lived experience, but at least I try to be open to additional evidence and willing to change my mind when wrong. That doesn't mean that every single perspective is equally worthy of time and consideration. We don't need to allow pure unarguable pro-invasion propaganda to be posted uncritically on this site under some sort of false pretense of helping people see all possible sides. If people want to take that as some sort of evil "editorializing," it just reflects these are decisions made by people with perspectives showing their principles/values. Not every perspective is equally principled, and this inherent "arrogance" is part of what it means to have principles/values in the first place (otherwise you wouldn't have any).)


Aside that:

Originally Posted by ramlaen

A surprise that SpaceX cannot operate in the red indefinitely, that the request was made back in September or that SpaceX really has been covering the majority of the cost of critical communication equipment that Ukraine asked for?

A surprise that all that is still only like 0.002 Twitters. (I'm not really convinced you were earnestly expecting a serious reply.)

[TheForsaken]

Originally Posted by OH&S

That's a bizarre statement to make for someone who has no ties to the region. Hopefully Nachtwandler can give some insight into this but that bolded part sounds like it came directly from the mouth of a Russian nationalist; aka the Kremlin or Putin.

You can just google it yourself, you know?

Yes, it's true.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire in 1783, and then part of the Soviet Union.
In 1954, Khrushchev transferred it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by TheForsaken

You can just google it yourself, you know?

Yes, it's true.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire in 1783, and then part of the Soviet Union.
In 1954, Khrushchev transferred it to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Sure. But why characterize it as "Khrushchev's mistake"?

[Sheba]

By Putin's logic, USA should give Alaska back. But he wont dare. I wonder why.