The logics of violence are fundamentally different between the two. Both are violent, yes, but the US invades Iraq for different reasons than Iran executes political prisonrs, for example. One is about the survival of the state, one is about advancing the conditions for capital accumulation.
The latter wasn’t what we were talking about.
Ah shit I got rid of it by accident you’re kidding me. Ok sorry. I put it back. I copy-pasted the reply a bunch of times so I messed it up. I don’t care if you don’t believe me as I know it’s true.
Though executions are a shit metric anyway because US doesn’t use that for political control it uses the police extrajudicially. Whereas obviously executions are used for political control by, say, Saudi/Iran.
The edit was to edit the number of people Iranian police killed during the Jina Ahmini protests because I read it wrong. IDK how to confirm it.
If you do not think that some states are more violent in their methods of control than others then I don’t know what to tell you tbqh.
I wasn’t referring to the US as one of the ‘less murder-y’ ones because it is a settler-colonial state. Though those killed by law enforcement in Iran are still considerably higher, e.g., during the Jina Ahmini protests over 300 were killed in only a month. Saudi not so much as the level of political opposition is lower. This is even if you count literally every US police murder as part of a campaign of political repression, of which plenty were but certainly not all.
I never claimed otherwise?
IDK how anyone-whether Hexbear or not-can possibly deny the fact that different governments rely on coercion to differing extents to maintain control.
I wasn’t referring to the US as one of the ‘less murder-y’ ones because it is a settler-colonial state. Though those killed by law enforcement in Iran are still considerably higher, e.g., during the Jina Ahmini protests over 300 were killed in only a month. Saudi not so much as the level of political opposition is lower. This is even if you count literally every US police murder as part of a campaign of political repression, of which plenty were but certainly not all.
I never claimed otherwise?
IDK how anyone-whether Hexbear or not-can possibly deny the fact that different governments rely on coercion to differing extents to maintain control.
I wasn’t referring to the US as one of the ‘less murder-y’ ones because it is a settler-colonial state. Though those killed by law enforcement in Iran are still considerably higher, e.g., during the Jina Ahmini protests over 300 were killed in only a month. This is even if you count literally every US police murder as part of a campaign of political repression, of which plenty were but certainly not all.
I don’t know why you thought I was as I didn’t even remotely begin to say it?
IDK how anyone-whether Hexbear or not-can possibly deny the fact that different governments rely on coercion to differing extents to maintain control.
Some governments are more willing to resort to violent repression against their domestic enemies than others, though.
For instance: In 2022, Iran had minimum 596 executions (likely more), Saudi Arabia had 146, the US had 18,
e.g., places like Iran, Saudi are quicker to do so than most, even for internal enemies of equivalent threat to the state itself.
For instance:, during the Jina Ahmini protests over 300 were killed in only a month.
All states and all governments use violence or the threat of it to uphold their rule, but some are more reliant on violence versus other methods of control than others…
Plus some are more willing to use violence in foreign policy vs domestic policy.
There has been no quantitative data released but based on solid reporting in re-taken areas e.g., Bucha it is evident that there were large-scale arbitrary executions.
By contrast, Russian media has presented little evidence of large-scale executions. There have been individual cases but there is no evidence to suggest it is as systemic.
While you are right to critique my claim, which I should not have made with such certainty perhaps, one can collate the available evidence and make a claim with reasonable-albeit not total-confidence. If Russia did have evidence of large-scale execution of PoWs, they’d obviously put it in their own friendly media outlets + it would be in Russian Telegrams.
Bad source for sure though there is ample evidence (you can watch videos of it) of quite large-scale execution and torture of PoWs among Russian and Wagner troops. It has happened on both sides but certainly far more on the Russian side…
I agree with you in terms of the dysfunction of Ukrainian political strategy surrounding Bakhmut. Politicians w/ no military planning experience intervening in what was previously a well-run campaign to achieve a symbolic victory against the advice of their own generals and even western advisors.
IIRC Ukraine still controlled part of the T0504 highway within the city at their worst point and since then they’ve taken back a couple of blocks.
Yeah western intelligence didn’t want Ukraine to die on the hill of Bakhmut (figuratively), Ukrainian leadership chose it for symbolic/domestic reasons rather than strategic. They never did take the whole city though and have since fallen back a bit, with the Ukrainian counteroffensive managing to take a few blocks back. Not too much, though. Ofc Russia has had the gradual advantage in Bakhmut for most of the last year but it was a grinding, incredibly slow, incredibly damaging battle for both sides. It was perhaps unwise for the Ukrainian leadership to make that move, though.
Then why did Russia fail to take Bakhmut, do you think?
Also thank you for the link. ISW has posted some bad content in the past and this helps to explain it, I think. I appreciate it.
I do not think there is much evidence that the Ukrainian army is seriously demoralised or unable to make weaponry.
Also source on the bit that Ukraine has suffered far higher losses than Russia? From what I’ve seen UK + US intelligence agencies are saying both sides have heavy losses but Russia has had higher ones overall (that is, since the start in 2022). Ukraine has probably suffered higher losses in the counteroffensive because modern warfare is defender-sided, but since February 2022? Hmm.
Source on the thing about Nuland owning/running/operating the ISW? Not heard it before. Not saying you’re wrong of course, just genuinely want to learn more!
With regards to the rest of the post, I don’t think the conflict is as divided on ethnic lines as you have said. The invasion has been largely opposed by Russian-speakers in Ukraine from all data I’ve seen, e.g., in areas like Kherson there was massive anti-Russian resistance and a huge swing towards Ukraine. Plus I don’t think supporting joining this or that economic bloc or voting for Yanukovych implies outright support for secession and DEFINITELY not invasion. Even if there is real support for Russia in the Donbas region, that still isn’t a divide on linguistic/ethnic lines considering the rest of the Russian-speaking part of the country has rallied behind Ukrainian state leadership.
Honestly I don’t know popular sentiment in the Donbass and I don’t want to make claims beyond the limits of my knowledge, but I do know that the more independent-minded leadership of the D/LPRs were replaced by pro-Russian ones from the 2014-2018 period and that it’s quite obvious Russia had a huge role in supporting them, propping up their political leadership, and militarily supporting them from the start. I think Crimea is different as there was way more genuine desire to secede to Russia even before 2014 (though I still think the referendum was rigged as polling beforehand showed a smaller percentage wanting to join-still way over 50% though).
In reality the war has frozen because the correlation of forces is balanced. Neither side will or can win or even move the front lines significantly. I just don’t think either side has realised yet. Neither is close to breaking point atm. Russia couldn’t even take Bakhmut, and Ukraine cannot make any ground even w/ new western tech in their supposed push towards Melitopol. No winners, only losers.
You say “NATO brought this on themselves” like they weren’t joyous at the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine but I think this isn’t true. The west has worked closely to recreate the Ukrainian Army from the ground up since 2014 (when it was useless) because they knew this was a possibility. This war-launched idiotically by Putin-has benefitted the west alone. Not Russia, and obviously not Ukraine.
-Ukraine is now irrevocably tied to the west and will be for the foreseeable future. Before this, western intelligence agencies were worried Zelensky was too pro-Russian. Not anymore.
-Eastern Ukrainians who speak Russian in their mother tongue are now anti-Russian for the most part.
-Lots of juicy money for western MICs.
-The bulk of the Russian Army is tied down in Ukraine and so cannot be used elsewhere-massive limiting of Russia’s strategic manoeuvrability.
-Russian economy damaged (not as much as they thought it would, but it’s still damaged) and large-scale brain drain of well-educated Russians who oppose the war who have now fled to Georgia and will seek to move to the west most likely. Also Russians living in the west who are more likely to be liberal will be much less likely to come home.
-Strong consolidation and reification of Ukrainian national identity, meaning far less likely for Ukraine to see Russia as a ‘kin state/brotherly nation’ akin to Azerbaijan/Turkey.
-Exposes and emphasises the fragmentation and factionalism within the Russian state and security apparatus, (see: Wagner).
-Kills lots of Russians whose families may eventually turn against the state once this war drags on and nothing good comes from it.
What I mean to say is that NATO isn’t suffering at all-at least, the Americans and Brits aren’t. They’re overjoyed! You can’t “bring something on yourself” forlornly if you’re openly working for it, then it’s just a success! I mean I don’t think they necessarily worked only for the invasion but basically just various means to bring Ukraine into the western fold, of which this was just one (probably not the ideal) option of many.
It was not a ‘rational’ or sensible reaction to NATO encroachment. I mean realistically with nuclear weapons the idea that a land invasion of Russia could happen is ludicrous, but even removing that factor there were countless other mechanisms at Putin’s disposal to achieve his strategic aims. This invasion was a terrible choice and it only happened because (A) the Russian leadership is full of yes-men who are unable to criticise Putin, (B) because the Russian leadership has become increasingly isolated from the realities on the ground in the last few years and so VASTLY misunderstood how the war would go. They thought it would be like Georgia (though the Georgia War was a mess from a Russian perspective they won anyway because of the vastly unbalanced correlation of forces).
Yes, this is a sensible and thoughtless war, but I think expecting Ukrainians to just give up against an aggressor is fruitless. They will not do it as long as they believe they can win (see Zartman’s concept of a mutually hurting stalemate), which both sides currently believe they can. Plus if it’s a frozen conflict and more or less even, why would Ukraine ‘surrender’? Yes, I think the eventual only possible end to this war will be a surrender of some territory (more likely is simply a frozen conflict), but I don’t believe it is politically viable atm and so it is pointless to support it. If Zelensky agreed to surrender territory he’d risk being overthrown and probably killed by the far-right and ultra-nationalist sections of the army/state. The morally best situation would be a return to the status quo ante bellum and a referendum in the east and in Crimea monitored by international IGO/NGO bodies not tied to any particular state, but that wont happen.
The balance of forces is even enough that one side admitting defeat is implausible until the mutual damage from the war is much higher and both sides come to realise it is unwinnable (this is a subjective understanding even if there are objective measures of ‘mutually hurting stalemate’.
edit: formatting
I think that is just a fundamentally one-sided understanding of why the Minsk Agreement failed to be honest. It was a poorly-written, unimplementable deal that neither side took seriously. It’s not like the D/LPRs and Russia were saints here. Indeed, there also isn’t much reason to believe the D/LPRs were, beyond the first year or so, really representative of the people in the region’s desires, since the original independent-minded leaders were replaced by those much closer to Russia. FURTHERMORE, the Minsk agreement was simply too unpopular in Ukraine for any government to survive implementing it. Ukrainians largely viewed the D/LPRs as Russian proxies (to what extent they are is arguable, but they certainly were less so as time went on and never were even to start with) and, in large, abhorred this sort of Russian influence.
It wasn’t just because Ukrainian state was war-mongering and poor baby Russia was forced to step in. This is not to say at all that the Ukrainian Government made no mis-steps in the build-up to the war-yes, they definitely did, and the Ukrainians simply didn’t believe Putin would be rash or stupid enough to launch such an invasion until very close to the time so never really backed down from a maximalist NATO position and didn’t prepare properly for early-war defences. But it’s not like you are saying. Both sides caused the failure of Minsk, and neither side was ready to adhere to it.
I don’t think that is in any contradiction w/ my comment whatsoever.
I think a peace deal involving referendums in these areas (not under military occupation-creates unfair and unfree conditions for a referendum e.g., as in Crimea!) would identify the actual will of the people in these parts of the Donbas. I expect heavily that Crimea above all would vote to leave Ukraine and I think it has every right to do so ethically-speaking, though I do not think the referendum was carried out in free/fair conditions.
edit: sorry this is really long.
I think it’s clear that NATO support for Ukraine is not altruistic (it is simply not how international politics functions) but the Ukrainian people as such certainly do, in my eyes, have an ethical right to self-defence. If I were Ukrainian, I would want NATO weapons because they give me a better chance of fighting off the invader. After all, it’s not like the 2022 invasion was the first bit of tension between Ukraine and Russia post-independence, it makes sense to try and form a counterbalancing alliance with the ‘far’ imperial power to counter the ‘close’ one, it’s a common thing to do. e.g., Mali allying with Russia to counter French influence, Armenia allying with Russia to counter Turkish-Azeri aggression, and so on and so forth.
I think what I find disagreeble about peoples’ attitudes on here is their attitude towards the Ukrainian people’s struggle. Yes, ok, I also hate the far-right elements in the Ukrainian military and don’t care at all that they got smashed in Mariupol, but I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians (there is clear evidence that outside of Crimea even Russian-speaking Ukrainians almost entirely oppose the invasion). Likewise
Yes, NATO does not care about Ukrainians, but an invasion was not the ‘logical’ response from Russia, and as per existing evidence was based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground in Ukraine from the Russian leadership which has become increasingly isolated and personalist (around Putin) in the past two decades but especially since COVID. There were a vast number of less escalatory and mutually destructive potential paths for the Russian leadership to have taken. After all, this war has gone terribly for Russia compared to their initial aims. Putin claimed (wrongly) that Ukrainian national identity was a Bolshevik creation with no real support, yet now a fervent Ukrainian national identity exists now more than ever before in both the east and west of the country. Putin thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would rally to his side, yet he has pushed them into the arms of the Ukrainian state more than ever before. Putin was afraid of Ukraine becoming aligned with NATO, yet now he has pushed them into the arms of the west completely and permanently. The invasion has killed tens of thousands of young Russian men, has caused considerable capital flight, large-scale brain drain, and empowered Prigozhin and other mercenary/sub-state militias (including Kadyrovites and such) to the point where a mercenary group was within a few hours of marching on Moscow(!) before deciding it wasn’t worth the effort (Prigozhin is still strong enough to be allowed to potter about diplomatic meetings, if you need any indication of the dire state of the Russian state). Putin claims to be conducting de-Nazification yet his policies since 2014 have uniformly strengthened the position of the far-right within Ukrainian state + society.
Plus the conduct of the Russian Army and its affiliated elements has been extremely inhumane. I would not say there is evidence of genocide, no (though the large-scale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their Russification, if true on a systemic scale, would be an act of genocide-I do not think there is enough evidence to say either way yet), but there is evidence of systematic and systemic abuses on a VASTLY larger scale than we have seen from the Ukrainians. It is a catastrophe of Russia’s own making.
To get back on topic (sorry), I do not see how you can admonish Ukrainians for supporting any means for their national self-defence. They have every right to resist the invasion and to not want part of their homeland (territory and ‘land’ is important in all national identities/mythologies), no? There is no contradiction between supporting this right to self-defence and self-determination and hating the Nazi groups which, unfortunately, have an outsized power within the Ukrainian military (but do not completely control the state-Zelensky is Jewish and a Russian-speaker!). Yes, Ukrainian national mythology has its share of far-right and general awful elements to it, but unfortunately that’s common in a lot of Eastern Europe and as per studies Nazism and antisemitism do not have more support in Ukraine than in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe. There has been plenty of polling/surveying on these topics in Ukraine. There is more so just a lack of understanding as to what the Banderites actually did in WW2, not real support for their actions/Nazi collaboration. That’s bad but not what some are saying on here.
I never liked the pig. It’s gross :(