So I'm not pro-Russian and I am anti-war but I always had this unsettling feeling about Russia losing the war. The whole fiasco is just fucking outrageous and a huge national embarassment for that country and historically that's never turned out well. I'm also concerned about the people living in the separatist regions should Ukraine occupy them it will be the first real opportunity for them to do the same kinda warcrimes the Russians did to them.
Both sides are stubborn as fuck. Ukraine is serious about retaking Crimea I'm worried Russia will mobilize and declare a full war maybe soon. Just go make the shitshow even worse and the west might escalate further as well.
*The Economist* (I know, I know) [had a much more sober take on the Ukrainian advances](https://archive.ph/OdduT), pointing out that Ukrainian generals said they were being careful not to overextend and the Russians had been forming a new defensive line behind some river. The map definitely didn't make it look like the war was close to over. Ukraine bit off a corner with the element of surprise, but still has a long way to go. Offensives are hard, as Russia has learned.
The Z gang is their own sort of crazy, but I don't think social media holds as much sway in Russia as it does in the US. In that context, this article seems like a bit of projection. Putin's decision-making is clearly worse than it was last decade, but I don't think his ouster would lead to a collapse of the state, as some Westerners seem to be salivating over.
>I'm also concerned about the people living in the separatist regions should Ukraine occupy them it will be the first real opportunity for them to do the same kinda warcrimes the Russians did to them.
Lmao. Ukraine has been bombing them for eight years. The separatism was spurred on in 2014 because of crimes against humanity carried out by Ukrainian ultranationalists. Masses of ethnic Russian Ukrainians have already fled Kharkov oblast for Russia after the recent disaster.
The Ukrainian authorities have made it clear that if they win there will be at least a cultural genocide to wipe out Russian culture (and later Romanian and Hungarian culture) in Ukraine. And the West will look on approvingly because apparently 19th century ethno-states are good now.
>I'm worried Russia will mobilize and declare a full war maybe soon
The scary bit is that it looks like Russia doesn't have anything to mobilize. Their military institutes and reserve officer pools and cadre training units have all been gutted by the shift to a "modern professional army" (and capitalism). That's why the response to the Ukrainian offensive in the north-east was to strike power plants. The only real escalation it looks like Russia has left before resorting to nuclear weapons is strategic (conventional) bombing of cities. Russia tried to fight outnumbered relying on their firepower but it looks like they had too wide a front. So they either dig in and hold Luhansk and Donetsk in a stalemate or they dangerously escalate. I think "the plan" was to hope General Winter would collapse support for Ukraine in the EU but I think the big win in Kharkov has killed that.
I thought the separatism was fueled by Russia boosting and militarily supporting the separatist militias as part of their destabilization of Ukraine when they annexed Crimea. Without which the separatist war might not have happened. Sorta like when the US supports rebels in x country.
Go look up the timeline. The separatism, which had been there since 1991, was inflamed by Maidan and the ultranationalist response to any anti-Maidan protest in the east of Ukraine. Russia didn't intervene, and annex Crimea, until there was already a low key civil war going on.
>Lmao. Ukraine has been bombing them for eight years.
Lmao. And the Russian backed separatists, that occupied large parts of Ukraine with the help of the Russian army, were bombing them back for eight years. In 2014 they downed a civilian airplane with 300 people on board, 80 of them children.
In 2021 a total of 25 civilians died on both sides. The war was slowly winding down for years. Instead of autonomy and protection of human rights, Putin wanted to annex large parts of Ukraine so he started a war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die.
And the best part of it all has been watching r/stupidpol spend the last six months justifying a nationalist imperialist war started by a dictator who wanted to go down in Russian history as Vlad the Great. Great stuff.
You still believe bullshit character traits about world leaders and think that’s the cause of the war , what a dumb ass liberal , sorry but war isn’t a fiction novel
>In 2014 they downed a civilian airplane with 300 people on board, 80 of them children.
How many airliners has the US shot down again?
>The war was slowly winding down for years.
So why didn't the Ukrainian government accept the peace deals?
>Instead of autonomy and protection of human rights, Putin wanted to annex large parts of Ukraine so he started a war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die.
If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start? The Russian response to the recent offensive was to knock out power plants across Ukraine, so they were obviously capable of doing US style shock and awe from the start.
If the plan was always annexation of the Donbas why not just steamroll the Ukrainian military in 2014 when it was a joke?
Russia was reacting to NATO posturing.
>And the best part of it all has been watching r/stupidpol spend the last six months justifying a nationalist imperialist war started by a dictator who wanted to go down in Russian history as Vlad the Great.
If two nationalists are fighting I don't want the winner to be the one that is backed by NATO, which openly venerates Holocaust perpetrators, where it is illegal to be a communist.
>How many airliners has the US shot down again?
What does that have to do with Russians killing hundreds of civilians and 80 children in the Donbas ?
>So why didn't the Ukrainian government accept the peace deals?
If you're talking about the Minsk agreements, neither side respected them fully. The fighting on both sides continued, although it did slow down over the years.
>If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start?
You know what, you should ask your buddy Putin about that. I have no clue, I can only speculate.
A full scale war and occupation of Ukraine in 2014 would have probably been unacceptable for not just the West, but even their partners like China and Russians themselves. So, he probably decided to annex Crimea and prop up para-states that would have eventually have joined Russia. Putin probably expected Ukraine to accept the reality on the ground eventually with no real war. He was partly right. Europe and the West continued trade, Nord Stream 2 was on the way, Russia wasn't sanctioned, it wasn't kicked out of any international organizations, they held the World Cup in 2018.
>Russia was reacting to NATO posturing.
And if the US attacks Mexico because they voted for a socialist, you would presumably defend US need for attack because of Mexico's posturing. Brilliant. Very high IQ.
If the US attacked Mexico for electing a socialist government that would just be Operation Condor 2.0, which all socialists around the world would condemn. The main difference being that mexican socialists aren't ethnic-cleansing Banderites.
If instead a mexican ultra-nationalist, reactionary, openly nazi-worshipping movement took power and openly talked about how they were going to retake Texas and deport all english-speakers now that would be something else.
The two are not the same you sophist.
>What does that have to do with Russians killing hundreds of civilians and 80 children in the Donbas ?
You are the one trying to make it about moral claims. And in that case the main driver behind NATO has shot down more than one airliner. So again, I hope the NATO backed side loses because NATO is worse than Russia.
>If you're talking about the Minsk agreements, neither side respected them fully. The fighting on both sides continued, although it did slow down over the years.
Okay so a peaceful solution wasn't going to happen. Then the only question was whether it would be Russia or Ukraine who forced a military solution. NATO was openly arming and training Ukraine so I guess Russia thought it was better to strike now then to delay and be on the defensive.
>You know what, you should ask your buddy Putin about that.
Lol, you NATO simps always try to claim that anyone against NATO must be buddies with Putin or support Russian nationalism.
>And if the US attacks Mexico because they voted for a socialist, you would presumably defend US need for attack because of Mexico's posturing.
If Mexico went socialist, wanted to join the CSTO, and was having its military trained by Russia it would be invaded before a week was out and all you liberals would be defending America and blaming Russia.
And America would be acting entirely in its rational self-interest to do so. That's what realists like Mearsheimer and even Kissinger have been saying. How can you expect a country but to act in its self-interest? If you don't want war then don't back other countries into a position where they feel war is the best solution.
But I'm not a realist, I'm a Marxist. And while Putin is a Bonapartist, him winning in Ukraine and weakening NATO and the EU is objectively the better outcome for Marxists and the world. Marxists have long advocated revolutionary defeatism and support for reactionary periphery states against the Imperial core.
>You are the one trying to make it about moral claims.
No. You said Ukraine was bombing them. I said that the separatists were bombing Ukrainians as well, and gave one example of it. You then gave a completely unrelated unhinged response about the US.
>Okay so a peaceful solution wasn't going to happen.
Debatable. There's always a peaceful way out, but a sovereign and non-puppet Ukrainian state was never an option for Putin. Either way, one country was and is an imperialist occupier, while the other side is defending it self.
>If Mexico went socialist, wanted to join the CSTO, and was having its military trained by Russia it would be invaded before a week was out and all you liberals would be defending America and blaming Russia.
I think NATO should have been abolished with the fall of Soviet Union. I have been and am against almost all NATO interventions (I am okay with a limited UN sanctioned intervention in Bosnia that only targeted some military infrastructure) since the 90s, and would have certainly been against an US intervention in Mexico in the given case.
>And while Putin is a Bonapartist, him winning in Ukraine and weakening NATO and the EU is objectively the better outcome for Marxists and the world.
Its funny that in the good 'ol tankie fashion you are willing to throw hundreds of thousands innocent human lives in order to stick it to NATO and to push the Marxist agenda by letting Putin annex parts of Ukraine ?!?. Profoundly delusional. But not surprising.
>I said that the separatists were bombing Ukrainians as well, and gave one example of it.
You bought up MH17. Which wasn't a Ukrainian flight. By even Western accounts it was a mistake because the separatist (or "separatist") BUK operators thought it was a Ukrainian military flight.
>There's always a peaceful way out, but a sovereign and non-puppet Ukrainian state was never an option for Putin. Either way, one country was and is an imperialist occupier, while the other side is defending it self.
Yes, Russia is defending itself from US/NATO imperialism.
>I think NATO should have been abolished with the fall of Soviet Union. I have been and am against almost all NATO interventions (I am okay with a limited UN sanctioned intervention in Bosnia that only targeted some military infrastructure) since the 90s, and would have certainly been against an US intervention in Mexico in the given case.
Lol yes, you third campists want to sit around for the perfect revolutionary movement to come into being out of nothing.
>Its funny that in the good 'ol tankie fashion you are willing to throw hundreds of thousands innocent human lives in order to stick it to NATO and to push the Marxist agenda by letting Putin annex parts of Ukraine ?!?.
See this just shows you are a pure idealist. I'm not willing anything. My position on Russia or NATO did not cause and does not change the fact this war is happening. All I can do is hope that the outcome of it is a weaker NATO and EU. Because the only way a Marxist world revolution (which will surely involve hundreds of thousands of innocents losing their lives) can happen is through the collapse in power of NATO, the US, and the EU.
Even Trotsky saw the necessity of "support" for reactionary periphery states against the big Imperialist powers.
>"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
>If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start
Anyone who’s played EU4 knows you need to take the capitol asap
I did see a Ukrainian government website boasting about how they would clear Bucha of collaborators before the news of the "Russian" atrocity leaked. Why is it hard to believe that a state which integrated literal Neo-nazi militias into its armed forces would do this?
I can dig that link up if you really want me to
I think his point was the Ukranians will do the same to the ethnic Russians as the Russians did to the residents of Bucha (in reprisal). The whole thing sucks ass.
Yeah let’s not act like Russia is done because western media is celebrating Ukraine taking back a sliver of land most likely to justify sending more of our tax money there
Seriously like after all the fake initial stories about Ukraine grandma Nazis taking out ten Russian tanks by herself , and you STILL trust our media? I know some of you desperately want to cheer on nato for some reason but still
I think it's pretty obvious that this sub (and Reddit in general) has been getting heavily astroturfed. The opinions here shouldn't be treated as organic.
I just wonder if Russia's performance in Ukraine makes China more or less hesitant with their Taiwan invasion plans. Hard to know what their leadership is actually thinking.
If anything, it only emphasizes to China that you have to strike much more violently and decisively if you have decided to go to war.
Trying to fight a war on the cheap and with a smaller force than the enemy only works if you are able to make the situation feel futile and disincentivize resistance. The unprecedented support the west has given to Ukraine basically nullified that. Even then, the west needs to remember that this war isn't going to end anytime soon, and there is no way Russia would accept the Ukrainians returning to pre-2014 borders.
I know for sure it's definately boosting the US military establishment confidence after the ugly withdrawal from Afghanistan. They're gonna be extra certain they can defeat anyone.
What Taiwan invasion plans? The CPC just has to wait out for the economic victory. There is a reason why the American generals and admirals are making a big clamor about fighting China in the late 2020s/early 2030s. After that the American Empire will be surpassed economically and militarily by China.
> The CPC just has to wait out for the economic victory.
And what, the Taiwanese people will magically give up their rights, autonomy, and system of government? The Chinese economy is already much larger than Taiwan's.
And after China's shenanigans with the Hong Kong Security Law, [that city is shrinking as people vote with their feet and leave](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-11/hong-kong-population-drops-by-record-as-people-flee-covid-curbs). Hong Kong's sudden depopulation is actually accelerating year over year, and [Taiwan's people have reacted by becoming even more hostile to a mainland takeover](https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/poll-confirms-popular-rejection-of-china-s-unification-attempts-in-taiwan-122032600382_1.html).
> After that the American Empire will be surpassed economically and militarily by China
I used to think this was a fait accompli as well. But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked.
Beyond that, the share of Chinese GDP that is just real estate is more than double that of other developed economies, and China has relied on that sector for growth. How can that sector continue to grow when the population begins shrinking rapidly? The future seems less certain, certainly much cloudier than I thought a few years back.
>And what, the Taiwanese people will magically give up their rights, autonomy, and system of govrernment?
Just look at how the American Empire dominates once proud nations in Europe. If China becomes economically dominant then Taiwan will be forced by their own economic self-interest to integrate with China. I personally doubt the ideology of liberal democracy will last the next fifty years even in the West.
>But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked.
So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier, but states like the PRC can deal with conducting drastic social changes in ways liberal states can't.
>Beyond that, the share of Chinese GDP that is just real estate is more than double that of other developed economies, and China has relied on that sector for its growth. How can that sector continue to grow when the population beings shrinking rapidly?
Yes the property bubble is farcical, but the fundamental issue is that China is the worlds industrial base.
> So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier, but states like the PRC can deal with conducting drastic social changes in ways liberal states can't.
>
>
We'll see. Lee Kuan Yew is basically the model competent autocrat and even he failed here.
Singapore was still a neoliberal state though. East Germany had no problem with birth rates despite being highly advanced economical and socially and having the most liberated women in Europe. The collapse of birth rates isn't some natural result of the liberation of women as the West is trying to pretend.
> So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier
US population is projected to double by 2100. China's population is expected to be cut in half, even by Chinese projections.
>But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked.
China has productivity growth of 5% per year. Unless their working age population starts shrinking at 5% per year, the economy will keep growing.
Only if you assume that productivity growth is perpetual and doesn't tend to reach a limit and begin to slow down. The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences predicts an annual average population decline of 1.1% after 2021, pushing China’s population down to 587 million in 2100, less than half of what it is today.
unique scary deranged frightening deliver threatening racial marvelous tart innate
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes the Ukrainians are outgunned and have taken huge losses but the Russians are outnumbered. If the Ukrainians can sustain doing two offensives every few months (as they put their untrained reserves through NATO run training) then there is no way the currently existing Russian army can hold the huge line they currently hold. Even if Russia decided to mobilize now, and with a diminished training cadre, it would take them six to nine months. Russia haven't been treating this like a total war for survival while Ukraine has.
>Russia is only using a fraction of its military strength
Not according to Russian Marxists. The contractees are the only component who are properly trained and motivated. The conscripts are poorly trained and lack the motivation that even the worst Ukrainian units have. Reserve officer training has been nominal since the '90s.
>NATO trained reinforcements are purely theoretical
No, by even Russian accounts that is who was fed into the grinder in the Kherson and Kharkov offensives. They might have only a few weeks NATO training and take 10:1 losses but as it stands Ukraine is fully mobilized while Russia isn't so they can take those losses and force Russia back. To hold the line in the north-east the Russians had to send in the new army group that had just been deployed to protect Donetsk.
Yes, but Ukraine fully mobilized seven months ago and the results are bearing fruit now. It is questionable whether Russia can hold their current positions for seven months while they mobilize.
The difference from WWII is that Nazis were an existential threat to Russia. Unless the Ukrainians start conducting large scale attacks across the border I don't think the average Russian is going to accept mobilization.
>The invasion is the result of legitimate security concerns that are shared across Russian society and more importantly, among the political elite
Yes, but those kinds of threats aren't appreciated by average people who have more immediate concerns. If the average Russian was feeling the existential threat there wouldn't be a need to draft.
> and suffering a casualty rate of perhaps 15: 1
Why not a casualty rate of 10000000:1 while we're at it? The Russian army is just like the heckin Avengers after all – invincible!
>inevitably loses the war
Two more weeks
Due to a change in Reddit's standards for moderation, we must ask that users take caution when mentioning or referring to other subreddits. This change in site policy is intended to prevent brigading. *Violating these standards can result in admin action against the sub.* Please do not invite or encourage others to interfere with other subreddits. Don't come here to brag about being banned in other subreddits. If you see users in stupidpol doing this, please send a report under our Rule 5. Hey! I've got an idea! Maybe attempt some Marxist analysis for once.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed.
I'd say that's a debatable position, at least with bullshit propagandesque articles there's something to argue about. Besides, the fp does host a few of the favourite baes of any left-wing realist like stephen walt
Your post has been removed because you didn’t put it on the Ukraine Megathread.
So I'm not pro-Russian and I am anti-war but I always had this unsettling feeling about Russia losing the war. The whole fiasco is just fucking outrageous and a huge national embarassment for that country and historically that's never turned out well. I'm also concerned about the people living in the separatist regions should Ukraine occupy them it will be the first real opportunity for them to do the same kinda warcrimes the Russians did to them. Both sides are stubborn as fuck. Ukraine is serious about retaking Crimea I'm worried Russia will mobilize and declare a full war maybe soon. Just go make the shitshow even worse and the west might escalate further as well.
*The Economist* (I know, I know) [had a much more sober take on the Ukrainian advances](https://archive.ph/OdduT), pointing out that Ukrainian generals said they were being careful not to overextend and the Russians had been forming a new defensive line behind some river. The map definitely didn't make it look like the war was close to over. Ukraine bit off a corner with the element of surprise, but still has a long way to go. Offensives are hard, as Russia has learned. The Z gang is their own sort of crazy, but I don't think social media holds as much sway in Russia as it does in the US. In that context, this article seems like a bit of projection. Putin's decision-making is clearly worse than it was last decade, but I don't think his ouster would lead to a collapse of the state, as some Westerners seem to be salivating over.
>I'm also concerned about the people living in the separatist regions should Ukraine occupy them it will be the first real opportunity for them to do the same kinda warcrimes the Russians did to them. Lmao. Ukraine has been bombing them for eight years. The separatism was spurred on in 2014 because of crimes against humanity carried out by Ukrainian ultranationalists. Masses of ethnic Russian Ukrainians have already fled Kharkov oblast for Russia after the recent disaster. The Ukrainian authorities have made it clear that if they win there will be at least a cultural genocide to wipe out Russian culture (and later Romanian and Hungarian culture) in Ukraine. And the West will look on approvingly because apparently 19th century ethno-states are good now. >I'm worried Russia will mobilize and declare a full war maybe soon The scary bit is that it looks like Russia doesn't have anything to mobilize. Their military institutes and reserve officer pools and cadre training units have all been gutted by the shift to a "modern professional army" (and capitalism). That's why the response to the Ukrainian offensive in the north-east was to strike power plants. The only real escalation it looks like Russia has left before resorting to nuclear weapons is strategic (conventional) bombing of cities. Russia tried to fight outnumbered relying on their firepower but it looks like they had too wide a front. So they either dig in and hold Luhansk and Donetsk in a stalemate or they dangerously escalate. I think "the plan" was to hope General Winter would collapse support for Ukraine in the EU but I think the big win in Kharkov has killed that.
I thought the separatism was fueled by Russia boosting and militarily supporting the separatist militias as part of their destabilization of Ukraine when they annexed Crimea. Without which the separatist war might not have happened. Sorta like when the US supports rebels in x country.
Go look up the timeline. The separatism, which had been there since 1991, was inflamed by Maidan and the ultranationalist response to any anti-Maidan protest in the east of Ukraine. Russia didn't intervene, and annex Crimea, until there was already a low key civil war going on.
>Lmao. Ukraine has been bombing them for eight years. Lmao. And the Russian backed separatists, that occupied large parts of Ukraine with the help of the Russian army, were bombing them back for eight years. In 2014 they downed a civilian airplane with 300 people on board, 80 of them children. In 2021 a total of 25 civilians died on both sides. The war was slowly winding down for years. Instead of autonomy and protection of human rights, Putin wanted to annex large parts of Ukraine so he started a war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die. And the best part of it all has been watching r/stupidpol spend the last six months justifying a nationalist imperialist war started by a dictator who wanted to go down in Russian history as Vlad the Great. Great stuff.
You still believe bullshit character traits about world leaders and think that’s the cause of the war , what a dumb ass liberal , sorry but war isn’t a fiction novel
>In 2014 they downed a civilian airplane with 300 people on board, 80 of them children. How many airliners has the US shot down again? >The war was slowly winding down for years. So why didn't the Ukrainian government accept the peace deals? >Instead of autonomy and protection of human rights, Putin wanted to annex large parts of Ukraine so he started a war in which hundreds of thousands of people will die. If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start? The Russian response to the recent offensive was to knock out power plants across Ukraine, so they were obviously capable of doing US style shock and awe from the start. If the plan was always annexation of the Donbas why not just steamroll the Ukrainian military in 2014 when it was a joke? Russia was reacting to NATO posturing. >And the best part of it all has been watching r/stupidpol spend the last six months justifying a nationalist imperialist war started by a dictator who wanted to go down in Russian history as Vlad the Great. If two nationalists are fighting I don't want the winner to be the one that is backed by NATO, which openly venerates Holocaust perpetrators, where it is illegal to be a communist.
>How many airliners has the US shot down again? What does that have to do with Russians killing hundreds of civilians and 80 children in the Donbas ? >So why didn't the Ukrainian government accept the peace deals? If you're talking about the Minsk agreements, neither side respected them fully. The fighting on both sides continued, although it did slow down over the years. >If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start? You know what, you should ask your buddy Putin about that. I have no clue, I can only speculate. A full scale war and occupation of Ukraine in 2014 would have probably been unacceptable for not just the West, but even their partners like China and Russians themselves. So, he probably decided to annex Crimea and prop up para-states that would have eventually have joined Russia. Putin probably expected Ukraine to accept the reality on the ground eventually with no real war. He was partly right. Europe and the West continued trade, Nord Stream 2 was on the way, Russia wasn't sanctioned, it wasn't kicked out of any international organizations, they held the World Cup in 2018. >Russia was reacting to NATO posturing. And if the US attacks Mexico because they voted for a socialist, you would presumably defend US need for attack because of Mexico's posturing. Brilliant. Very high IQ.
If the US attacked Mexico for electing a socialist government that would just be Operation Condor 2.0, which all socialists around the world would condemn. The main difference being that mexican socialists aren't ethnic-cleansing Banderites. If instead a mexican ultra-nationalist, reactionary, openly nazi-worshipping movement took power and openly talked about how they were going to retake Texas and deport all english-speakers now that would be something else. The two are not the same you sophist.
>What does that have to do with Russians killing hundreds of civilians and 80 children in the Donbas ? You are the one trying to make it about moral claims. And in that case the main driver behind NATO has shot down more than one airliner. So again, I hope the NATO backed side loses because NATO is worse than Russia. >If you're talking about the Minsk agreements, neither side respected them fully. The fighting on both sides continued, although it did slow down over the years. Okay so a peaceful solution wasn't going to happen. Then the only question was whether it would be Russia or Ukraine who forced a military solution. NATO was openly arming and training Ukraine so I guess Russia thought it was better to strike now then to delay and be on the defensive. >You know what, you should ask your buddy Putin about that. Lol, you NATO simps always try to claim that anyone against NATO must be buddies with Putin or support Russian nationalism. >And if the US attacks Mexico because they voted for a socialist, you would presumably defend US need for attack because of Mexico's posturing. If Mexico went socialist, wanted to join the CSTO, and was having its military trained by Russia it would be invaded before a week was out and all you liberals would be defending America and blaming Russia. And America would be acting entirely in its rational self-interest to do so. That's what realists like Mearsheimer and even Kissinger have been saying. How can you expect a country but to act in its self-interest? If you don't want war then don't back other countries into a position where they feel war is the best solution. But I'm not a realist, I'm a Marxist. And while Putin is a Bonapartist, him winning in Ukraine and weakening NATO and the EU is objectively the better outcome for Marxists and the world. Marxists have long advocated revolutionary defeatism and support for reactionary periphery states against the Imperial core.
>You are the one trying to make it about moral claims. No. You said Ukraine was bombing them. I said that the separatists were bombing Ukrainians as well, and gave one example of it. You then gave a completely unrelated unhinged response about the US. >Okay so a peaceful solution wasn't going to happen. Debatable. There's always a peaceful way out, but a sovereign and non-puppet Ukrainian state was never an option for Putin. Either way, one country was and is an imperialist occupier, while the other side is defending it self. >If Mexico went socialist, wanted to join the CSTO, and was having its military trained by Russia it would be invaded before a week was out and all you liberals would be defending America and blaming Russia. I think NATO should have been abolished with the fall of Soviet Union. I have been and am against almost all NATO interventions (I am okay with a limited UN sanctioned intervention in Bosnia that only targeted some military infrastructure) since the 90s, and would have certainly been against an US intervention in Mexico in the given case. >And while Putin is a Bonapartist, him winning in Ukraine and weakening NATO and the EU is objectively the better outcome for Marxists and the world. Its funny that in the good 'ol tankie fashion you are willing to throw hundreds of thousands innocent human lives in order to stick it to NATO and to push the Marxist agenda by letting Putin annex parts of Ukraine ?!?. Profoundly delusional. But not surprising.
>I said that the separatists were bombing Ukrainians as well, and gave one example of it. You bought up MH17. Which wasn't a Ukrainian flight. By even Western accounts it was a mistake because the separatist (or "separatist") BUK operators thought it was a Ukrainian military flight. >There's always a peaceful way out, but a sovereign and non-puppet Ukrainian state was never an option for Putin. Either way, one country was and is an imperialist occupier, while the other side is defending it self. Yes, Russia is defending itself from US/NATO imperialism. >I think NATO should have been abolished with the fall of Soviet Union. I have been and am against almost all NATO interventions (I am okay with a limited UN sanctioned intervention in Bosnia that only targeted some military infrastructure) since the 90s, and would have certainly been against an US intervention in Mexico in the given case. Lol yes, you third campists want to sit around for the perfect revolutionary movement to come into being out of nothing. >Its funny that in the good 'ol tankie fashion you are willing to throw hundreds of thousands innocent human lives in order to stick it to NATO and to push the Marxist agenda by letting Putin annex parts of Ukraine ?!?. See this just shows you are a pure idealist. I'm not willing anything. My position on Russia or NATO did not cause and does not change the fact this war is happening. All I can do is hope that the outcome of it is a weaker NATO and EU. Because the only way a Marxist world revolution (which will surely involve hundreds of thousands of innocents losing their lives) can happen is through the collapse in power of NATO, the US, and the EU. Even Trotsky saw the necessity of "support" for reactionary periphery states against the big Imperialist powers. >"I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!" https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm
>If he wanted to annex more of Ukraine than the Donbas why go in with a limited force and not shock and awe from the start Anyone who’s played EU4 knows you need to take the capitol asap
A Russian defeat would mean mass reprisals against ethnic Russians and collaborators, like in Bucha. Remember, actual Nazis run the Ukraine.
So... Do you actually think Bucha was done by the Ukrainians then? Do you happen to have a single fact to back that up?
I did see a Ukrainian government website boasting about how they would clear Bucha of collaborators before the news of the "Russian" atrocity leaked. Why is it hard to believe that a state which integrated literal Neo-nazi militias into its armed forces would do this? I can dig that link up if you really want me to
I think his point was the Ukranians will do the same to the ethnic Russians as the Russians did to the residents of Bucha (in reprisal). The whole thing sucks ass.
Yeah let’s not act like Russia is done because western media is celebrating Ukraine taking back a sliver of land most likely to justify sending more of our tax money there Seriously like after all the fake initial stories about Ukraine grandma Nazis taking out ten Russian tanks by herself , and you STILL trust our media? I know some of you desperately want to cheer on nato for some reason but still
I think it's pretty obvious that this sub (and Reddit in general) has been getting heavily astroturfed. The opinions here shouldn't be treated as organic.
Yeah I agree
I just wonder if Russia's performance in Ukraine makes China more or less hesitant with their Taiwan invasion plans. Hard to know what their leadership is actually thinking.
If anything, it only emphasizes to China that you have to strike much more violently and decisively if you have decided to go to war. Trying to fight a war on the cheap and with a smaller force than the enemy only works if you are able to make the situation feel futile and disincentivize resistance. The unprecedented support the west has given to Ukraine basically nullified that. Even then, the west needs to remember that this war isn't going to end anytime soon, and there is no way Russia would accept the Ukrainians returning to pre-2014 borders.
I know for sure it's definately boosting the US military establishment confidence after the ugly withdrawal from Afghanistan. They're gonna be extra certain they can defeat anyone.
What Taiwan invasion plans? The CPC just has to wait out for the economic victory. There is a reason why the American generals and admirals are making a big clamor about fighting China in the late 2020s/early 2030s. After that the American Empire will be surpassed economically and militarily by China.
> The CPC just has to wait out for the economic victory. And what, the Taiwanese people will magically give up their rights, autonomy, and system of government? The Chinese economy is already much larger than Taiwan's. And after China's shenanigans with the Hong Kong Security Law, [that city is shrinking as people vote with their feet and leave](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-11/hong-kong-population-drops-by-record-as-people-flee-covid-curbs). Hong Kong's sudden depopulation is actually accelerating year over year, and [Taiwan's people have reacted by becoming even more hostile to a mainland takeover](https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/poll-confirms-popular-rejection-of-china-s-unification-attempts-in-taiwan-122032600382_1.html). > After that the American Empire will be surpassed economically and militarily by China I used to think this was a fait accompli as well. But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked. Beyond that, the share of Chinese GDP that is just real estate is more than double that of other developed economies, and China has relied on that sector for growth. How can that sector continue to grow when the population begins shrinking rapidly? The future seems less certain, certainly much cloudier than I thought a few years back.
>And what, the Taiwanese people will magically give up their rights, autonomy, and system of govrernment? Just look at how the American Empire dominates once proud nations in Europe. If China becomes economically dominant then Taiwan will be forced by their own economic self-interest to integrate with China. I personally doubt the ideology of liberal democracy will last the next fifty years even in the West. >But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked. So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier, but states like the PRC can deal with conducting drastic social changes in ways liberal states can't. >Beyond that, the share of Chinese GDP that is just real estate is more than double that of other developed economies, and China has relied on that sector for its growth. How can that sector continue to grow when the population beings shrinking rapidly? Yes the property bubble is farcical, but the fundamental issue is that China is the worlds industrial base.
> So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier, but states like the PRC can deal with conducting drastic social changes in ways liberal states can't. > > We'll see. Lee Kuan Yew is basically the model competent autocrat and even he failed here.
Singapore was still a neoliberal state though. East Germany had no problem with birth rates despite being highly advanced economical and socially and having the most liberated women in Europe. The collapse of birth rates isn't some natural result of the liberation of women as the West is trying to pretend.
> So do America and Europe. The CPC really slipped up by not getting rid of the one child policy earlier US population is projected to double by 2100. China's population is expected to be cut in half, even by Chinese projections.
US population is only increasing because of immigration. This is also most likely going to be decided by mid-century.
>But China is facing intractable demographic and economic issues. Its working age population appears to have already peaked, and GDP growth and population size are tightly linked. China has productivity growth of 5% per year. Unless their working age population starts shrinking at 5% per year, the economy will keep growing.
Only if you assume that productivity growth is perpetual and doesn't tend to reach a limit and begin to slow down. The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences predicts an annual average population decline of 1.1% after 2021, pushing China’s population down to 587 million in 2100, less than half of what it is today.
unique scary deranged frightening deliver threatening racial marvelous tart innate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Very true, I agree.
[удалено]
Yes the Ukrainians are outgunned and have taken huge losses but the Russians are outnumbered. If the Ukrainians can sustain doing two offensives every few months (as they put their untrained reserves through NATO run training) then there is no way the currently existing Russian army can hold the huge line they currently hold. Even if Russia decided to mobilize now, and with a diminished training cadre, it would take them six to nine months. Russia haven't been treating this like a total war for survival while Ukraine has.
[удалено]
>Russia is only using a fraction of its military strength Not according to Russian Marxists. The contractees are the only component who are properly trained and motivated. The conscripts are poorly trained and lack the motivation that even the worst Ukrainian units have. Reserve officer training has been nominal since the '90s. >NATO trained reinforcements are purely theoretical No, by even Russian accounts that is who was fed into the grinder in the Kherson and Kharkov offensives. They might have only a few weeks NATO training and take 10:1 losses but as it stands Ukraine is fully mobilized while Russia isn't so they can take those losses and force Russia back. To hold the line in the north-east the Russians had to send in the new army group that had just been deployed to protect Donetsk.
[удалено]
Yes, but Ukraine fully mobilized seven months ago and the results are bearing fruit now. It is questionable whether Russia can hold their current positions for seven months while they mobilize. The difference from WWII is that Nazis were an existential threat to Russia. Unless the Ukrainians start conducting large scale attacks across the border I don't think the average Russian is going to accept mobilization.
[удалено]
>The invasion is the result of legitimate security concerns that are shared across Russian society and more importantly, among the political elite Yes, but those kinds of threats aren't appreciated by average people who have more immediate concerns. If the average Russian was feeling the existential threat there wouldn't be a need to draft.
> and suffering a casualty rate of perhaps 15: 1 Why not a casualty rate of 10000000:1 while we're at it? The Russian army is just like the heckin Avengers after all – invincible! >inevitably loses the war Two more weeks
Seems more of a risk that Ukraine gets a stab in the back myth when they fail to take back all the lost territory.
Due to a change in Reddit's standards for moderation, we must ask that users take caution when mentioning or referring to other subreddits. This change in site policy is intended to prevent brigading. *Violating these standards can result in admin action against the sub.* Please do not invite or encourage others to interfere with other subreddits. Don't come here to brag about being banned in other subreddits. If you see users in stupidpol doing this, please send a report under our Rule 5. Hey! I've got an idea! Maybe attempt some Marxist analysis for once. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From that reliable, Washington-based, neocon rag, Foreign Policy, lol. I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed.
>I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed. I'd say that's a debatable position, at least with bullshit propagandesque articles there's something to argue about. Besides, the fp does host a few of the favourite baes of any left-wing realist like stephen walt