Elon Musk Wants Hasan ARRESTED For Charlie Kirk Attack | Hasanabi reactsHasanabi (AKA Hasan Piker) is an American Twitch streamer and political commentator. ...
If it were about liberating the ethnic Russians oppressed by Ukraine they would not be so happy with a slow churning meat grinder approach, they would do what the west does and destroy country-wide infrastructural.
The slow approach is precisely because they want to avoid damaging large swathes of the country and causing massive civilian casualties. This way the damage remains relatively restricted to the area around the line of contact, and the casualties are overwhelmingly military. This conflict has one of the lowest civilian to military casualties in any modern conflict. I won’t even compare it to Gaza because that is not a war, it’s a genocide, but even something like the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the Syrian civil war, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, etc. all had way, way higher ratios of civilian casualties.
If they went all out in the way you suggest that would be a sure recipe for turning the population of Ukraine against Russia more efficiently than a decade of the anti-Russian Banderite propaganda has done. Ukraine right now is struggling with a huge desertion problem and a lack of volunteers so serious that they are having to resort to insanely abusive forced mobilization practices. If Russia launched a campaign against the civilian infrastructure all they would be doing is motivating millions more Ukrainians to fight, and that would prolong the conflict far more than the current careful and methodical approach.
At the end of this Russia doesn’t want to have a destroyed country full of radicalized Russia hating people on their border. They want to have a friendly or at least neutral, semi-functional, stable country whose population has grown disillusioned with the entire Banderite project. Meanwhile on the front they continue to eliminates the most radicalized and fanatic ones who can’t be turned.
Russia is still a capitalist country that uses its military for its own interests, not anti-fascism
We agree that the potential threat of Ukraine as a militarized bordering state is what concerned and concerns Russian leadership the most. You argue that the slow meat grinder is better psychologically and for Russia’s long-term interests against a hostile militarized state on its borders. I agree with this as well. My point was that the invasion was and is not about rapidly ending the progressive ethnic cleansing done by UA in Donbas and elsewhere, but for Russian strategic interests. Going for a proper rapid “win” by disabling production and infrastructure would be a more reasonable direction to take if the goal was to protect Donbas alone.
Of course, the ethnic cleansing in Donbas was a motiving factor, but less because of Russia having some kind of principled position against ethnic cleansing, but because it is a literal war zone and training ground for advancing anti-Russian interests and power. In the end it is good that these interests align, I am just saying it is a mistake to think that Russia is motivated by ethnic cleansing itself.
In terms of anti-fascist, I am again speaking to motives. In effect they are killing off many UA Nazis and that is great. But in motivation they truly do not care, it is just a PR thing that has very popular national liberation aesthetics (USSR defeating the Nazis). This is a good example of why the support is critical! Of course we want the end of UA Nazis and I’m supportive of that, truly. But we do have to remember that the RF is itself capitalist (and reactionary!) and is anti-imperialist only to the extent that it is excluded from the party. So we defend it against liberal chauvinist bullshiy and attempts to take blame away from the imperialists, but also amongst ourselves must understand the extent to which it directly opposes our projects, interests, and comrades.
In the end it is good that these interests align, I am just saying it is a mistake to think that Russia is motivated by ethnic cleansing itself.
I agree. But it is a fact that the underlying strategic interests do align with the humanitarian imperative in this case.
This is important because the humanitarian argument is a better and more persuasive argument to make to liberals than the geostrategic argument.
So we defend it against liberal chauvinist bullshiy and attempts to take blame away from the imperialists, but also amongst ourselves must understand the extent to which it directly opposes our projects, interests, and comrades.
The slow approach is precisely because they want to avoid damaging large swathes of the country and causing massive civilian casualties. This way the damage remains relatively restricted to the area around the line of contact, and the casualties are overwhelmingly military. This conflict has one of the lowest civilian to military casualties in any modern conflict. I won’t even compare it to Gaza because that is not a war, it’s a genocide, but even something like the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the Syrian civil war, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, etc. all had way, way higher ratios of civilian casualties.
If they went all out in the way you suggest that would be a sure recipe for turning the population of Ukraine against Russia more efficiently than a decade of the anti-Russian Banderite propaganda has done. Ukraine right now is struggling with a huge desertion problem and a lack of volunteers so serious that they are having to resort to insanely abusive forced mobilization practices. If Russia launched a campaign against the civilian infrastructure all they would be doing is motivating millions more Ukrainians to fight, and that would prolong the conflict far more than the current careful and methodical approach.
At the end of this Russia doesn’t want to have a destroyed country full of radicalized Russia hating people on their border. They want to have a friendly or at least neutral, semi-functional, stable country whose population has grown disillusioned with the entire Banderite project. Meanwhile on the front they continue to eliminates the most radicalized and fanatic ones who can’t be turned.
Both can be true.
We agree that the potential threat of Ukraine as a militarized bordering state is what concerned and concerns Russian leadership the most. You argue that the slow meat grinder is better psychologically and for Russia’s long-term interests against a hostile militarized state on its borders. I agree with this as well. My point was that the invasion was and is not about rapidly ending the progressive ethnic cleansing done by UA in Donbas and elsewhere, but for Russian strategic interests. Going for a proper rapid “win” by disabling production and infrastructure would be a more reasonable direction to take if the goal was to protect Donbas alone.
Of course, the ethnic cleansing in Donbas was a motiving factor, but less because of Russia having some kind of principled position against ethnic cleansing, but because it is a literal war zone and training ground for advancing anti-Russian interests and power. In the end it is good that these interests align, I am just saying it is a mistake to think that Russia is motivated by ethnic cleansing itself.
In terms of anti-fascist, I am again speaking to motives. In effect they are killing off many UA Nazis and that is great. But in motivation they truly do not care, it is just a PR thing that has very popular national liberation aesthetics (USSR defeating the Nazis). This is a good example of why the support is critical! Of course we want the end of UA Nazis and I’m supportive of that, truly. But we do have to remember that the RF is itself capitalist (and reactionary!) and is anti-imperialist only to the extent that it is excluded from the party. So we defend it against liberal chauvinist bullshiy and attempts to take blame away from the imperialists, but also amongst ourselves must understand the extent to which it directly opposes our projects, interests, and comrades.
I agree. But it is a fact that the underlying strategic interests do align with the humanitarian imperative in this case.
This is important because the humanitarian argument is a better and more persuasive argument to make to liberals than the geostrategic argument.
Of course. Hence critical support.
Yes 100% comrade