No country would want a part of them to secede. Majority of Eastern Ukrainians are still loyal to Ukraine-- the issue had been more about where to align until Putin exacerbated the tensions rather than easing them, especially after invading Crimea. Of course, no country would want a part of them to secede. Ukraine did not approve of this and things only escalated. The conflict in Eastern Ukraine was a civil, domestic matter but Kremlin made it an international one.

The UN did say there is no ethnic cleansing but Kremlin obviously worked behind the scenes to stoke tensions. The usual boogeyman of Azov battalion and Ukrainian far right only appeared in large groups in May 2015, long after 2014 Maidan revolution and after the Russian annexation of Crimea in early 2015.

Your own state Russian TV station videoed counting blank ballots as yes in the supposed referendum. Maybe you should get glasses old fart 🤡

Again, this is like Republic of Ireland invading the politically British territory of Northern Ireland and then invading England. Or Turkey invading the whole of Cyprus after already annexing the north. It’s illegal and you know.

You know who else invaded other countries under trumped up justification to protect German minorities abroad? Why won’t Russia invade Baltics then to protect Russian speakers? Russian nationalists are a strange lot.

Russia sanctioned-proof themselves in anticipation of the consequences of invading Ukraine. They have long history and experience after all since the Soviet days of international sanctions. However, autarky always shows to only have short term effect but in the long run, the severe consequences always catches up in the end. Just look at how Soviet Union led to its eventual demise and the war in Afghanistan accelerated that collapse. The war in Ukraine will do the same to the current regime.

Conversely, even though the EU had been dependent on Russian fossil fuel before, the boomerang effect you mentioned is only short to medium term because disruption in trade is always expected during a war. But this only pushed the EU to import American gas and accelerate the EU Green New Deal to compensate for the loss of Russian gas and oil.

With Russia only having 1/5th the GDP of Italy and endemic corruption, the failure to subdue Ukraine is only going to eat at the Russian economy and political prestige. Even if Russia wins or gets concessions, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Because loss of demographics (Russia is experiencing population decline before the war) will have severe consequences to the workforce and economy, the sanctions after the war will continue to hit the Russians, and the country will become more economically reliant to China and by extension politically as well. More importantly, the claim to stop NATO expansion just had the boomerang effect of just admitting two new nations into the alliance. With Russia tied in Ukraine, they loss influence in CSTO as member states resumed border clashes, especially with Armenia becoming frustrated on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.

As if the referendum in Eastern Ukraine wasn’t totally done at gunpoint and there was no clear video evidence of counting ballots as yes, despite the ballot being blank.

Funny there is no desire by Russian-speaking Baltics to try to join Russia. It is though Kremlin knows exactly not to agitate NATO members. Putin meanwhile harangued Georgia and Ukraine because they’re not NATO members.

Edit: Also, the UN themselves stated they found no evidence of genocide or discrimination on Russian-speakers in Ukraine in 2015.

Ukraine split amicably with Russia and the borders were agreed upon after the fall of Soviet Union. The same source that you linked for your last picture would have also shown survey that Russian-speaking Ukrainians also do not wish their country to be split despite the disagreements.

But Putin exacerbated the division for his own end (same as how he stoked tensions in Georgia). That’s like Republic of Ireland stoking tensions in Northern Ireland to get back the north. Or, Turkey doing the same to take over the entirety of Cyprus after already taking over the northern part of the island. All of those would violate international sovereignty of a nation under the UN Charter, which Russia have practically done in the case of Ukraine.

Russian MO is so easy to call out. They copy the playbook from another fascist claiming ethnic Germans abroad were being oppressed to justify invasion. Even though there was no evidence.

Tell me how exactly Russia benefits from the prolonged war with amounting financial cost and casualties that future generations of Russians will pay?

Russia is experiencing demographic crisis before the war, and many men either fled or died, and the country have become beholden to China, Iran and North Korea. And Russia has only issued partial mobilisation, but imagine if the entire country then mobilised more for total war just to try to beat another country that is 1/10th the size and couldn’t do so for two years.

Ukraine mobilised for total war already and they’re willing to die for a bigger goal and for their homeland. Are you yourself willing to be complicit to your country’s decline for handful of rubles that is depreciating in value over time?

“Utopia for Realists”

Greed. And people just unwilling to change from what they have been grown accustomed to.

I am reading a book on supporting universal basic income, and it provided all examples of the times when the homeless were provided unconditional income and a home. Every cities in the world that did this have been successful in eliminating homelessness.

This is not a Finnish model, it’s common sense.

I don’t really see anything toxic. Unless you go to different instance which has certain reputations. I didn’t realise I was in a tankie instance because I have all instances appear on my feed. I am still accustomed to Reddit just being managed in one site and occasionally stumble into communities full of morons. But since, Lemmy is still has not got much people, I can still spot communities that are toxic because I have seen them before, unlike in Reddit where multiple subreddits appear but serving one ideology or interest.

The new look looks like a slot machine.

I would disagree. It is still far from being able to tell with clarity if Russia is winning. Plenty of things could still happen. Somehow, we’re often forgetting naval warfare and focus too much on the army/ground level. Ukraine managing to turn the Russian fleet scurrying away from Sevastopol, as it had become too vulnerable for missile attacks, is no easy feat. And they killed the top Russian Black Sea officers (I’m convinced Admiral Sokolov is dead). This gave Ukraine needed breathing room to finally resume grain shipments, which could help Ukraine further finance the war and remove Russia’s stranglehold and ability to blackmail the world from accessing grains.

Although, how would all these translate to victory on land? Obviously, Ukraine will have more money coming in from exporting grain and other commodities. Might this allow them to buy more and better weapons? An option I see is Ukraine being able to intertidict Russian logistical lines, which they have proven to be pretty adept at. But the question is, would this lead to desired strategic successes and more immediate outcome desperately wanted by the West (we don’t need to know what Ukraine wants because they could keep going forever if they could)? Only time will tell.

Well, you’re going to get different responses, many of which are good points, and depending on the person you asked.

But imo, it is hard to tell. And the best response we can say is: we don’t know. Ukraine retook many territories but so has Russia. Both sides suffered many casualties. The problem with analysing the war is the white noise coming from emotional responses on the events of the war happening at the time.

When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they will capitulate. They didn’t. Kyiv then retook Kharkiv Oblast, everyone thought Russia will surrender. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was hyped, but disappointed many. Prigozhin tried to coup Putin and thought it is the end of Putin, but they’re still here.

So, the best response to your question is, we don’t know. And that’s the most certain answer you could get and that is not a bad thing. For those who tend to forget, we still have the fog of war shrouding our vision. We don’t know what will happen in many months to come. Hindsight only tends to be 20/20 after an event.

However, I think the two major considerations for this year is 1. Ukraine had been effective in interdicting Russian logistical lines and sent the Russian Black Sea fleet reeling away from Crimea. Those are Ukrainian strategic gains that are often forgotten and not seen by the mainstream as important, who see ground combat as more important. 2. Though on the other side, the Russian support for Putin is still strong and either they support the war or ambivalent. In this case, Putin won the hearts and minds of Russians to either support or turn a blind eye to the conflict. Propaganda war is as important as military one to convince enough of the public to support it.

I agree in principle but this is a slippery slope and they’re not “easy” skills to learn as OP have asked.

Filosophy Xtra Y-fi Citi

Trolls and vatniks have been telling to the people it’s “getting cold” since last year to dissuade more support for Ukraine. Well, a lot more will lose than just heating for homes by tolerating Putin.

ITT: plenty of vatniks sowing doubt with further supporting Ukraine.

The Ukraine war reached to a standstill, discouraging others to give further support and prosecuting the war. But anything can still happen in the next couple of months.

It’s hard to say whether it was a good idea to capitalise on Prigozhin’s coup at the time. The problem with the fog of war is that everyone’s vision is hindered. And when look back and say we should have done this and that, someone will say hindsight is 20/20.

You compared Putin to Hitler and the Nazis, and explicitly drew your conclusions from this comparison. Maybe don’t draw conclusions if the analogy is bad?

Again, because Nazis and fascists are similar. They exalt their own group while dehumanising out groups. Putin is doing the same.

That’s not a response to my point about you downplaying fascism in Ukraine. Funding far-right groups in other countries is something liberals do all the time, just look at all the far-right parties, regimes and insurgents the US has supported over the years. But you’re claiming the US isn’t fascist, so you have to extend the same leeway to Russia here. Liberals support and work with fascists all the time.

How hard is it understand you don’t invade another country because for those reasons? Same way as it is wrong for US to invade or meddle another because a country elected a socialist government.

Moreover, Ukraine is far from being a Nazi state when they have a Jewish leader and the neo-Nazi parties in Ukraine only got measly 2% of the votes in the elections prior to the invasion. There are Nazis in Ukraine just like everywhere else. Austria also have a far right party ruling but you don’t invade the country for it! Would you promote to invade Saudi Arabia for its Wahabbism? And just as I suspect, you ignored the analogies. You are definitely consuming Russian propaganda whether intentionally or not by keep whatabouting Azov.

Again more than likely, Putin stoked nationalist tensions to create pretext to invade Ukraine. He is an ex-KGB agent after all (but he did say there is no such thing as ex-KGB agent after all). Many authoritarian leaders do the same to make excuses to attack another.

Even if we, for the sake of argument, pretend like Russia is fascist, it doesn’t follow that they want to conquer Europe, will never stop, can’t be reasoned with, will commit genocide if not stopped, or whatever. That’s actually part of your Hitler analogy, and I already went over why that one is bad.

I never said Putin wants Europe. He wants Ukraine because of its importance. Putin is not going to invade the rest of Europe. Why would he attack NATO Europe? He wants to extend Russian borders as far away as possible from the core regions around Moscow and to expand their own influence. That has always been the Russian strategy and having Ukraine within Russian orbit is critical to the Russian geopolitical ambitions.

And btw, I’m not going to watch a Kraut video, from what I gather he’s a dipshit and I don’t want to.

I’m sure you would rather watch Russian propaganda dipshits and parrot what they say.

I never even fucking argued that Putin is fighting this war because he wants to denazify Ukraine, since I don’t believe this. I’m pointing out this: You’re making the argument that Putin must be opposed at all costs because he is a fascist in bad faith, since you downplay and excuse the very obvious fascism that infests the Ukrainian state, which you support. That fascism is a lot more obvious to me than the alleged Russian one.

You brought up the Azov and Nazis in Ukraine as Putin’s justifications, the usual whatabout. What else could you be implying? Putin must be opposed because he carries a dangerous precedence that invading another country for trumped up pretext is okay and the last 70 years of peace could be thrown away. It would set precedence to others that it is alright to dump the UN Charter to respect national borders and invade another country. It’s like being back to the days before World War II with Wild West-style international relations. Putin may not invade Europe and only stop at Ukraine, but his actions will influence others with far-reaching consequences.

In your other comments you did specifically mention Hitler and Nazis, now you’re “ok ok not Nazis more like some other fascist”.

Like I said, not all fascists are Nazis. I always referred to Putin as fascist, not Nazi. There are overlaps among the fascists sub-groups but they’re not identical. Mussolini was willing to oppose Hitler with annexing Austria before and side with the Allies but Mussolini found he had more use for allying with Hitler at the time (then we know how things ended up). Putin does things that mirror Hitler and the Nazis, but like the mirror image, it is still different. Nonetheless, not all fascists are the same, like democratic countries are not all the same either.

you need to actually analyze what the Russian goals actually are. Just going “that’s just what fascists do” is not enough.

This is something many outsiders don’t understand. Russians are first and foremost nationalists. They don’t care what kind of government rules them so long as they could carve their own sphere of influence. They ascribe to what is called [Eurasianism] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism?wprov=sfla1). That’s primarily the Russian foreign policy. There is a strong Russian exceptionalism. Even the liberal opponent of Putin, Alexey Navalny, is also a hard nationalist. Consider that Mikhail Gorbachev, who was friendly with the West and led the dissolution of the Soviet Union, still expressed concern of NATO expansion. One would have thought that the man who is more liberal would be open to embracing Western liberal values and possibly get the country to join NATO, still expressed concern of NATO expansion. That says a lot that Russia see themselves as their own power and that their realm is Eurasia, not identifying with the West or others.

The fact that you then dismiss state-funded and state-promoted Azov as “there are neo-Nazis in all countries” kinda makes it clear you don’t really care about fascism

Putin himself have used neo-Nazi groups to his own benefit. [There are plenty of those groups linked to Kremlin] (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-22/putins-fascists-russias-home-grown-neo-nazis/100927582), nevermind Putin cosying with and funding far-right political parties.

The Azov only sprouted in 2014 after Putin meddled and annexed Crimea. Had Putin not interfered, he would not have stoked Ukrainian nationalism. Ukraine and Russia were friendly before but Putin did not want Ukraine to join the EU, and possibly join NATO (by the way, NATO still did not admit Ukraine to the alliance despite what happened so Putin’s fear of NATO expansion is delusional).

Even if that’s the case, you don’t invade another country. No one is saying to invade Saudi Arabia to “de-Wahabbisised” the country for radicalising Muslims across the world. Funny that Russian apologists ignore those analogies, don’t they? I’m sure you’ll ignore this as well.

Btw I have heard all this stuff about Ilyin and Dugin or whatever before. This seems like pretty weak sauce to me, I’m sure you can find some influential fascist-ish writer or another in pretty much any liberal’s bookshelf, especially a politician’s. I suggest you try to play your game of “find the fascist influence” with Britain, or France, or the US.

Then I suggest you watch the video I linked. Putin and many other Russians regularly cite Ilyin more than Dugin.

Britain, France and US are not dominated by fascists so mentioning them doesn’t make sense, unless Sunak, Biden and Macron proudly proclaim they are inspired by fascistic writers.

Going back to Putin. He is not going to let go of Ukraine. It’s a geostrategically important country for Russian agenda. Not only is it resource-rich but it’s Russia’s vulnerable point because of the flatlands and close proximity to oil-rich Caucasus and access to the Black Sea and into the Mediterranean. And I also mentioned Putin writing an essay denying Ukrainian national identity so Ukraine is personal to him.

Fair point on your first paragraph. Ukraine was also making a huge headway in defeating separatists in Eastern Ukraine before Putin ordered the full scale invasion.

Putin asked for ceasefire several times especially after Ukraine retook Kharkov region and stopped at the current frontline https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/putin-certifies-annexation-occupied-ukrainian-territories-and-calls-ceasefire-kiev/20220930153801158438.html