qqqq
1yr ago
What is wypipoing? Wypipoing is calling oneself a “patriot” while waving a confederate flag. Wypipoing is whining about widespread voter fraud while rubber-stamping gerrymandering, voter suppression and felon disenfranchisement. Wypipoing is screaming about freedom of speech while outlawing critical race theory. And if you find the term “wypipoing” offensive…
Are you sure that the article is about the white race and not about Republicans / online chuds?
qqqq
1yr ago
I don't think it's intellectually fair to use the word "genocide" (which most people associate with the physical extermination of people) in relation to a situation where children from an orphanage in Mariupol are sent to an orphanage in Russia.
Do you consider restrictions on the study of the Russian language in eastern Ukraine a genocide?
The Russians will be brutal regardless, and will continue to be brutal over any Ukrainian territory they control both now and potentially in the future.
Probably the exact opposite is true. Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.
qqqq
1yr ago
If you don't think it's fair to apply the Convention on the Prevention and
Get rid of bureaucratic nonsense. I think that this word in everyday use has a completely different meaning.
can be found from Bucha to Kherson.
Both Russians and Ukrainians constantly claim that they find torture chambers in the occupied territories, this is probably just information garbage.
If we talk about Bucha, then we are talking about the alleged incident with the execution of men mistaken for artillery spotters, a guy on a bicycle who unsuccessfully rode onto a convoy preparing for battle and many civilians killed by Ukrainian artillery.
I doubt that you hold radically politically correct views. The claim to double standards also doesn't work perfectly, as the left sees no contradiction here, because they consider whites to be a large and powerful group that such generalizations do not pose a threat to anyone.
qqqq
1yr ago
Did they benefit from the war started by Ukraine? Of course not.
But I see a lot of irony in the fact that in 2022 Ukrainians stopped thinking that cutting off gas, water and electricity is very funny.
qqqq
1yr ago
I left Lugansk in 2014. It is strange how someone does not understand that all the people there sincerely hate Ukrainians. And yes, the East of Ukraine has always been pro-Russian. Lviv raguli - of course not.
qqqq
1yr ago
clear that they do not consider themselves Russians, in fact they are willing to kill and die over this very point.
Well, this is definitely not true for Donbass or Melitopol.
Where we see both people who are ready to kill in order to NOT be Ukrainians and people who are generally loyal to the Russian government.
rom the various peoples who have come into conflict with them.
I would be interested to know which countries improved their opinion of each other after the war.
qqqq
1yr ago
I also never said it was genetic. It’s cultural and educationally transmitted.
After 1917 the Soviet Union completely changed the culture and education system. The Huns cannot be relevant.
here’s no evidence Donbas wanted to join Russia. There’s never been independent not occupied votes.
Well, first of all, it was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) .
And secondly, you will not create a successful militia in a small region, fighting the army of a 40-million country without the support of the local population. You can talk as much as you want about Strelkov connections with the FSB, but Strelkov had a lot of fighters from Donetsk. And the Russian army intervened in the conflict much later.
Let’s remember Germany was spending like 1.3% of gdp on defense
The US has never disarmed. And they actively demonstrated their readiness to attack random countries.
The NATO fear (which is irrational)
A military alliance with a population of a billion people and a GDP of 60 trillion that denies you the right to become a member, but stubbornly continues to push towards your borders, creating opportunities for proxy wars or a critical violation of your nuclear deterrent. Can't this be taken as a threat?
I'm talking about the shelling of thermal power plants and local gas pipelines. And jokes about it in ukrnet. And funny meme about "conditioners" of course.
qqqq
1yr ago
Don't know. For the last 6 years, I have interacted with Ukrainians only on 2ch, and even then rarely.
But I think that having the opportunity to choose and not being afraid of reprisals from the SBU, the majority in the east would prefer Russia. Russia is corny richer, less crime, better infrastructure and government, and no one would have to change either their culture or their language.
qqqq
1yr ago
Soldiers who shoot at any moving target during battle - yes. The massacre of combatants, whom the soldiers consider to be combatants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre) - yes.
But when a party that clearly has a conflict of interest and uses the statements of the Ukrainian government, which is quite often lying, starts telling stories that are clearly designed for an emotional reaction and are implausible from the point of view of hypothetical actors - I show a lot of skepticism.
qqqq
1yr ago
There seems to be discussed the expansion of NATO in general. In the case of Ukraine, I would replace Poland with Ukraine and not much would change. (Although the armed coup and the right of the population to self-determination make this case more difficult).
And the threat to Russia is not Ukraine, it is the United States and NATO, of course.
qqqq
1yr ago
"Хохлосрач, хохлосрач никогда не меняется."- Фаллаут, наверное.
This dispute has been going on for decades and never leads to anything. And in any case, instantly turn into throwing shit at the monitor.
qqqq
1yr ago
I wrote about it in the thread above.
An invasion either requires an improved missile defense system to reliably intercept intercontinental missiles, or can be carried out using a proxy.
qqqq
1yr ago
How do you have such confidence, and how do you have confidence that at some time the US will not invade North Korea?
qqqq
1yr ago
I reject this part.
First, the presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security in the medium term. Especially when your opponent has much more financial and human resources. Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars. Starting from attempts to arm the non-systemic opposition, ending with the Ichkerian separatists.
Isn't that enough reason?
qqqq
1yr ago
I'm trying and I can't understand what you're all arguing about? There are three actors in this game. It is true that Poland joined NATO, as the prospect of access to the closed EU market and subsidies from Germany, France and the UK is very tasty. It is true that the US is interested in expanding its sphere of influence. And it is true that for Russia, the expansion of NATO and the EU is a loss of market access and unacceptable security threats.
That is, Poland has reasons to join NATO/EU, the US has reasons to increase its influence, Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression.
All of these things can be true at the same time. Right?
qqqq
1yr ago
Basayev was supported by Russians back then
Was the dude who actively supported Dudayev's separatist government since 1991, hijacked a Russian plane with hostages in 1992, and actively participated in the struggle for the independence of Ichkeria, really a Russian proxy?
but Russian support to Abkhaz separatist
And also Russia evacuated Georgian military from Sukhumi and protect Shevardnadze in Poti. Perhaps the absence of a civil war in Georgia or refusal to use army against regions with separatist sentiments would help more than minor excesses and the supply of weapons in the interests of all parties to the conflict.
just like Donbass War
I understand that if in 2014 Ukrainian government had not used the army against Donbass, Ukraine would have peacefully lost all eastern territories. But I am not ready to justify desire of Ukrainian government to kill because they did not want to lose some of their power.
qqqq
1yr ago
It has little to do with the topic of conversation.
Well, your view of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhaz-Georgian conflicts is slightly simplified. A country that bloodlessly gains independence from the USSR and a year later decides to use the army against the region that wanted independence from Georgia.
Basayev joined the conflict after the start of the war.
"Incite instability there" happened before him.
And it is rather difficult to call him and his forces supporting him Russian. (Although de jure they were.) But even then, Russia had little control over Chechnya.
The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it
Really?
Firstly, nuclear weapons are protection for today. Will it still be relevant in 20 or 30 years? Or will the development of missile defense systems make strategic missiles irrelevant? But the multiple numerical superiority of NATO and the territories of Ukraine convenient for the offensive will remain relevant much longer.
Second, proxy wars. Georgia is a perfect example. The creation of a supply and training base for Chechen fighters through the Caucasus mountains is a catastrophic threat that almost nothing can counter (the camps themselves are located on NATO territory, and it is almost impossible to effectively cut off supplies through the Caucasus mountains). The borders with Ukraine are not so obviously dangerous, but they can also be used to support the armed opposition (which still needs to be created, which is not easy, but makes sense with such a potential for supply through Ukraine). And the large length of these borders makes the supply cut much more difficult than for the borders with the Baltics or Finland.
And the restriction of access to markets and the loss of a sphere of influence are negative events in themselves, although not a military threat.
qqqq
1yr ago
Did I miss all the Soviet invasions into Eastern Europe pre and post Cold War?
The logic of the world communist revolution and the Cold War had nothing to do with the opposition of the feudal states of Rus against the Polovtsians. Like the pan-Slavism of the Russian Empire. These are too different societies and states for inheritance to make any sense.
You know those referendums were not free and fair elections.
You strangely assume that the pro-Ukrainian population left, when in fact there were people who fled the war to Ukraine and Russia. The referendums sufficiently reflected the will of the majority of the population. Legal formalities are much less important.
US did cut military spending.
Show me this on graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Defense_spending.png
And outside of Mitt Romney like I remember some guy named Obama making fun of Romney and the Cold War and everyone laughed.
The beginning of the Obama presidency was rather a strange exception, which quickly ended. As I understand it, the US was afraid that the 2008 crisis would turn their economy into Japan and began to behave like a good boy, normalizing relations with Russia and China. But it just ended in nothing when it became clear that quantitative easing was working. In general, the beginning of the Obama administration is a short and atypical period of change in rhetoric.
we never explicitly denied Russia from joining NATO.
And the EU has never denied Turkey membership. It is not in politics to publicly refuse such things. This does not mean that the de facto refusal did not occur.
And a lot of analysts are disappointed with Germany and a lesser extent Italy and a few others providing Russia with the machinery they needed to build weapons.
The Russian military-industrial complex has always remained quite separate from other countries. Except for buying electronics.
Germany built the Russian military infrastructure.
It was built by the USSR.
qqqq
1yr ago
Jesus! Oh, these national ideas, printed in the genetic code since the time of the Huns. Is this a serious theory?
First, the negative attitude towards the US and NATO and the perception of its expansion as a threat to personal and state security. It started back in the Cold War and hasn't gone anywhere.
Secondly (and it's strange to me how people forget about internal and external groups in the culture wars thread) the population of Donbass is an internal group. And when Ukraine attacked a region that wanted to join Russia, the bulk of the Russian population perceived this as an attack on their own group with a predictable reaction. And the fact that there is no Ukrainian Internet and all Ukrainians are in RuNet only exacerbated the confrontation. And guro with Russian military finally consolidated this.
qqqq
1yr ago
Lol. With a population of 70 million, Germany mobilized about 18 million people during the Second World War. And Germany needed industry and economy to support the front. Someone had to make tigers, panthers, fokewulfs, shells and wheat. Ukraine does not need any industry or economy. Hence they can mobilize a larger percentage of people. They certainly have more old people, but they have fewer children. So with a population of 36 million (optimistically) people, they could well mobilize more than 9 million. They have many refugees, but almost all of the refugees are women, so migration has little effect on mobilization potential.
What they mean is that whites are secure enough to know that such generalizations are only directed against political opponents, not against their race.
Simply put, there is no negative generalization when the group is not outnumbered or threatened.
In any case, it is important here what the author of the article meant, and not how you can interpret his words if you wish.
I confused your comment with MelodicBerries deleted comment.
More options
Context Copy link