Ryan_047

And what do you suggest they do instead? The West and Ukraine I mean. That's too simplistic imo. There are degrees of propaganda and lies. I can assure you, after checking Russian media outlets, that there is way less actual information in the Russian backed media outlets. CNN is not the same as CNBC, nor as Fox or whatever other American media services there are. It matters where the funding comes from and the creative independence the journalists enjoy and how controlled they are (or not) by the leadership of the publication. It's up for future historians to determine what in the Russian narrative was propaganda and what in the Ukrainian narrative was propaganda. But seeing the bullshit that comes from the Russian side, I can confidently say that the balance tips more towards Moscow. "I think the biggest problems with Russia started when a pro-Russia government was overthrown and an anti-Russia government was installed by the West. Of course, people think they did it." I'd appreciate some information and sources on this.

Some replies in this forum are a prime example of why actual NATO/USA criticism is not taken seriously or brushed aside as dumb Russian/Chinese propaganda. There are people claiming that the Russian military is not actually losing in Ukraine, people that said Hitler was a good leader and saved Germany and everyone loved him, people that said Belarus joined Russia willingly, people that said that the Euro Maidan protests in Ukraine were a CIA coup, Ukrainians shooting their own residential buildings because they're stupid and don't know how to use weapons, Russia never started wars and USA starting all of them, sharing of official Russian media outlets which are clearly as the light of day just propaganda for Putin's regime, Russia being an idle victim, Russia never funded extremist movements across Europe, Ukraine helped Nazi Germany in WW2 and thus it deserves its fate... and the list can go on and on... not to mention those who started trolling when they lost an argument. Please, RESEARCH before you speak. Even Leo said in a comment that Ukraine "did nothing" until this war, which is a myopic view. You can't have a coherent and nuanced point of view if you swing the pendulum all the way from Western propaganda to Russian propaganda. Just because Russia has been the victim in the past of Western abuse, that doesn't mean that everything they're saying now is the absolute truth and that all Ukrainians are Nazis that hide in civilian buildings and thus provoke the Russian army to bomb them. Yes, NATO/US bombed the shit out of Serbia for weird reasons, orchestrated coups against democratically elected governments (hypocrisy much?), squashed organic leftist movements in the name of democracy and so forth. But is this really the point of this discussion or not? It's war, there will be abuses on both sides. That's what war is. Let's actually see what these abuses are (on both sides), what is the history that led up to this point, what their leaders are doing and so forth. The discussion will serve no purpose if all we're doing is parrot propaganda and point out the dumb shit NATO once did. If NATO invaded Ukraine instead should we have talked about what Russia has done wrong in its entire history?

Yeah, the Russian army is doing so great that many Russian soldiers are deserting, some are shooting themselves in the foot, leg or arm with low caliber bullets just to no fight and in 2+ weeks they didn't even manage to conquer 1/4 of Ukraine. Some are even fucking up their own vehicles so as not to fight the "Nazi" Ukrainians. Oh yeah, even some ethnic Russians in Ukraine are opposed to Putin's invasion. Also their logistics suck, it's no secret at this point. When your army has such a low morale, it's no wonder that it sucks. In reality, Putin has filled the ranks of the military with dumb and corrupt yes-men loyal to him only. That's how dictators maintain power and prevent the military from orchestrating a coup against them. This is (mainly) why the Russian army suffers from bad logistics and bad equipment. I still think Russia can militarily win, but it's going to be very, very hard. Not to mention the aftermath of maintaining an occupation force in a country that hates Russia to death, thanks to Putin. I think that it's going to be impossible. So much for the "2nd best army the in world". Nothing but a paper tiger.

You don't get it. Europe is supplying Ukraine with weapons, and once Ukraine falls under Russian occupation this supplying will stop. Nobody is going to pour money into a puppet state. People will still die (especially civilians) with all the guerilla warfare you are suggesting, and you don't understand that the occupying force will retaliate every time a military action takes place. Guess who will suffer? Civilians, of course. Also during peace time the civilians will slowly withdraw their support to the guerilla forces out of fear or being hunted and punished themselves . That's how it always happened. People just want to go back to their lives. Guerilla warfare seldom liberated a country by its own. Almost always an external "liberating" force was needed for long term results. I'd also like to know 20 names of those analysts who support guerilla warfare if there are indeed so, so many. It doesn't take a genius to see that Russia is sucking economically big time and that they won't be able to hold Ukraine for long, but I'd argue that this is actually prolonging the suffering, from their POV. Imagine Ukraine being cut from outside support because it's a puppet regime for... let's say 5 years. They won't get money from Russia. Imagine the potential drop in morale that would take place if Ukraine is put to her knees. Lots of soldiers would just give up. One of the reasons for this high morale is Western support, which again, will stop if Ukraine falls. If it were by me the war would stop tomorrow, but what you are suggesting will do more harm than good (for the Ukrainian pov) in my opinion. Ukraine will not be liberated by random people blowing up train tracks after suddenly surrendering to the invader. And if this scenario will take place, it will be mostly Western economic sanctions that will corrode Russia's ability to hold Ukraine, not guerilla warfare. Nazi occupied countries were not liberated by guerilla fighters, but by external armies. Yes they do play a role, but it's not decisive by any means.

How was he not shot after that? Or did the Nazi officer had a good laugh himself? =))

Zelensky did not invade Russia, it's Putin who's hurting the global economy. He invaded another country because "Nazis". Even if Ukraine surrendered tomorrow, the sanctions will still go through. So your whole argument is "Stop the fighting now, so to fight in the future using guerilla warfare tactics." You realize that a country that is constantly in a conflict has more to lose right? Did Vietnam develop economically while fighting the French and Americans in guerilla warfare? Did Yugoslavia under Nazi rule? Did China in the civil war? The list goes on and on. People will still die if they resort to guerilla warfare, and don't expect Russia to pour money into Ukraine for reconstruction and development and don't expect the West to pour money in a Russian puppet state. People in an economically deprived country that is under a constant sense of threat since there is guerilla warfare going on will not flourish. It's not just human lives we're talking about, it's quality of life, which matters a whole lot more than you might think it does. Quality of life determines whether you stay stuck in development, have mental or physical illnesses or commit suicide or not. It's either fight for a better life, flee in the West, or live in shit from the Ukrainian POV if you'd like. You can't expect them all to flee or live in shit. What you are arguing for it's not wisdom as you fancy, it's betraying his people.

Yet. Even if he wins militarily and manages to install and maintain a puppet regime, and somehow stop his entire economy from collapsing (which some analysts think can be done by integrating economically with China and moving away from Europe, but that will take some years), the hatred of Ukrainians will come back one day and bite him (or the next dictator in line) in the ass very, very hard. Putin has secured that Ukraine will predominantly have an anti Russian sentiment for a long time to come and one day that will translate into a neighbor that will surely join an alliance that opposes Russia, the second Russia is showing weakness. And arguably, he managed to keep Ukraine out of EU and NATO by creating artificial states in the east. You can't join any of those organizations if you have border disputes, so your argument doesn't really make any sense. No matter how West leaning the leadership in Ukraine could have been, they wouldn't have given up on Crimea and Donbass just to join EU and NATO.

Red-blue I'd say, with blue slightly dominating red. Of course there are elements of orange there as well. Most people who were green or orange (or higher) left the country way before the current events. The reason Russia is stuck in a lower stage of development is because of Putin's regime in my opinion. His rule will be yet another dark chapter in Russian history.

I agree with this. Russia is holding back militarily, no matter what some experts say. Russia could mop the floor with Ukraine if they really wanted to, but that's not their purpose. Yes, their initial attacks were bad, but they could always carpet bomb Ukraine into submission. This is why Zelensky is asking for a no-fly zone above Ukraine. I have a bad opinion of the current Russian politicians, but I personally don't see them going that far. Even if a nuclear war (a very toned down nuclear war) would break out, and most of humanity wouldn't die or suffer negative consequences, there will still be no winners, just as in the scenario of total nuclear war, where everyone dies. Do you think they would push the red button just so that Russia wouldn't look weak or undecisive? Technically, Finland initiated the peace talks from what I can remember. New troops and equipment started pouring in after the initial embarrassing losses. Finland just wasn't able to halt the Soviet war machine any longer, after months of fighting, and stopped things from getting worse for them. I'm more inclined to trust the Soviet narrative on this one, that they won. Yes, they lost 250.000 people, but they were the victors. That's not to say that this war was "useless" to Finland, they quite literally impressed the entire world and prevented the Soviets from annexing the entire country (or a big chunk of it) just because "it used to be part of the Tsarist empire".

I have the same anxieties as you do. Romanians in Moldova have emigrated in Europe a lot due to the pro Russian leadership they had to endure for so many years. They work in Western countries (sometimes even Russia, but that's quite rare) and come back home and live off the money they made working abroad. The cycle continues each and every year. For reference the Moldovan currency is somewhere around 0.054 US dollars (no, those 2 zeros are not a mistake). You literally can't work domestically and afford to live. I hope Russia leaves Ukraine asap and not touch anymore countries. Though it's a good "opportunity" to do the same to Moldova as they did to Ukraine. Those 2 countries are in a very, very similar situation.

Yes, but I think they will not intervene in such a case. The Romanian parliament has 2 pro Russian parties and 1 pro Hungarian party which make up 50%+ of the parliament, which will oppose any military intervention. The president is also weird. Even if the majority of the politicians were pro Western, NATO wouldn't allow Romania to intervene, as that would be a direct confrontation with Russia.

I see North Korea and Russia becoming democratic (probably in 100+ years) before China. Do you know about China's social credit system? Combine that with a very strong military, high (and increasing) standards of living and the most advanced propaganda machine to ever exist and you get an effective high functioning dictatorship. I think China will remain communist (and a super power) for a very long time to come, as attempts to democracy in the 2000s have been digitally and physically crushed. China is so, so interesting (don't take that as me admiring communism).

I got it for free. It's based on income.

It wasn't Hitler that lifted Germany out of misery, but it was the directives made by the Weimar Republic, which had collapsed prior to his rise to power. He just took advantage of those economical directives that needed time to materialize. The Nazi Golden Era is a historical myth, that exists because of Nazi propaganda. One of the basis of fascism is helping poor people. But fascism also suggests creating artificial enemies in order to justify brutal actions. He "helped" anyone who wasn't Jewish or "undesirable". That's plain wrong. He rose to power through propaganda, physical violence and political backstabbing in a very hostile environment filled with political and economic instability, which wasn't exclusive only to Germany in that era. Yes, he did bring stability by crushing all resistance internally, but can you really call him a good leader for that? You intentionally and conveniently forget the brutality of the military branch of the NSDAP and the fact Hitler himself ordered the murder of members of his party when things did not go his way. The Nazi economy was based on the idea of "Lebensraum" that being economic growth through conquest, and it was structured like a crime syndicate that worked to enrich the elites of the state, not the average German. Hitler would commit suicide again if he found out that Austria and Eastern Prussia are no longer part of Germany. You've got lots of holes in your understanding of Nazi Germany and you're thus spreading a wrong image of it. Putin is not Hitler for many different reasons, but I wouldn't go as far to say that both of them are good leaders when in both cases the average German/Russian ultimately suffered more because of their actions.

This is WAY WAY better, thank you. This is a common technique used to cause instability. They are basically using your history against you. It's a malign kind of genius if you come to think about it. Of course, this is not exclusive to Russia nor to USA, as you've rightfully pointed out. Could you provide sources to back up this? I really want to research this further once I got the time. Of course, some of your information are cold facts which could be verified by a simple Google search, but that doesn't mean that it justifies the whole picture necessarily. "This ultimately builds a narrative to move Ukraine into Nato. Except it may be backfiring." Most of the Ukrainians don't know about the Nazi stuff nor are they interested in it. I firmly believe that the will to join EU and NATO is a genuine want that is shared by the vast majority of Ukrainians. Being economically bullied and installing puppet politicians for almost 30 years did not suit well with the Ukrainians and of course the pendulum was swung into the exact opposite direction.

@K Ghoul And a tiny group of Nazis justifies the entire invasion of Ukraine and bombing of civilian targets? The article you sent me barely touched upon the Nazi thingy, and it's full of propaganda. You also didn't say anything to prove that I'm wrong regarding Russia's funding of extremist groups across Europe nor Putin's assassinations of people who refused to be yes-men/women for his oppressive regime. Please provide other sources regarding the Ukrainian Nazis, that are not directly owned by the Russian Federation. How am I supposed to differentiate between propaganda and actual information from news that come directly from a country that is notorious for that?

What's the difference if Putin is killed or dies naturally? It will still be a member of his hand-picked oligarchy who will do political machinations in order to gain power. Of course. But why would a new leader be worse? There are different, (and arguably) better circumstances in place for Russia, than there were in the 90s that enabled a character such as Putin to rise to power.

Couldn't this be a similar situation to post WW2 USSR? After Stalin died, came Khrushchev who was a big improvement compared to its predecessor. He basically came from the same group. Yes, he did a lot of backstabbing and political machinations in order to gain power, but I think historically there is a general consensus that he was a step forward as a whole for the USSR.

Honestly, you're right on your intuition but I'd replace Ukraine with "NATO" and that's when you understand some of Putin's fears. I recommend CaspianReport's video on "How an attack on Ukraine would look like" from a few weeks ago. It touches upon this aspect.

Dumb closed minded website.

This is all wrong, I'm sorry. That's not how things happened. You can check out other books and sources that will pretty much say the same thing. What you are saying is the very condensed (and factually wrong) version schools systems teach.

I'm very, very lonely. Not gonna get into details. As I've read this I felt worse because I had thoughts of "human connection and intimacy won't help me even if I get it huh". That translated into more desperation. I'm not going to take what you say as dogma and try to back track the process, but I'm curios of how you do this: The problem is that I get overwhelmed and end up paralyzed wishing for more emotional support, which I know I'm not gonna get. Then that translates into inaction and living in zombie-land.

Yes, that's true. What I'm saying is not really meant to be taken as practical advice because pragmatically is really dumb. And again, not used to look down upon unfortunate people. I'm being non judgmental as in I don't attach emotions to these things. Of course, If I really lived in North Korea I would be pissed and slave my way through life hoping something would change without having to sacrifice myself. Yes, that's true again. But I'm not trying to covertly defend today's democracies because I think they are not really true democracies that work in the interest of everyone. I see how frustrating it is for some people who were "saved" by these democracies not being able to speak up because they are considered to have the moral high ground. Depending on the country, is more of a mix of multiple things and I cannot really put a label on it. But that's more mental masturbation, so no need to get into that. Again, sorry if I seemed rude at any point in our conversation.

No, that's what I was trying to convey. If I'm a North Korean, I have 2 choices: a. accept the current situation and continue my life in this horrible state and hope that something will change someday b. fight against the regime What I'm trying to convey is that all citizens are responsible for what is going on in their country. All the individuals in a collective make up the collective, right? b seems dumb because it literally means death (as I tried conveying multiple times in my previous reply) and it is dumb, but that doesn't exempt you from responsibility no matter how grim the alternative is. (my opinion of course) I also don't demonize or think that these people who don't actively resist oppression are evil or should be looked down upon, I want this to be very very clear and not be misunderstood. I'm trying to get as objective as possible as to understand fundamentally why oppressive societies exist. By choosing to go to work in North Korea, you are helping the regime stay alive and thus spread suffering. Yes, your "sin" is very very small because you did not create North Korea and made it a communist nightmare 70+ years ago, but you have influence, no matter how small it is. Your actual responsibility is very very small, but it's there. This is what I was arguing for, that the average Joe in any country (no matter how free or oppressive) has power, from the guy that is cleaning toilets, to the leader himself/herself. Yes, it's dumb to use that very small power because it can get you killed (especially when there is no realistic opportunity to change anything), but that doesn't change the fact that you still have it. I'm being radical and say he/she is (to a very tiny degree ofc). Acting upon that responsibility means having his own family killed and eaten, but it won't happen, because survival is way more important no matter how aware he is of this. His agency boils down to either survival, or death for fighting a dictator that made life unbearable for everyone still alive.