Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the Russian dictator, has said that the task of the aggressor country on the so-called�demilitarisation� of Ukraine has allegedly been largely fulfilled.
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There’s more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There’s even more NATO border incoming that didn’t exist before. Staying, expending more of your people’s lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It’s only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say “therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure” or “therefore Russia’s capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term”? Again, what’s up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
I mean, who are the winners in a Cold War at all? You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say “therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure” or “therefore Russia’s capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term”? Again, what’s up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
Got it.
You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
For the world population, maybe. There’s an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can’t see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn’t manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There’s a lot of maybes and mights in there. That’s just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Not true. With the USSR went the need to support any social services in the US since there was no alternative ideology anymore, so it was a loss for the working class of the US, which is the majority. It was a rhetorical question, which you didn’t get.
Also btw, the USSR collapsed not because of internal strife and balkanization, that was the result. It collapsed because of the introduction of profit/market economy.
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
LMAO out of all of this you mention the Chernobyl disaster, which makes me think you learn Soviet history through your Britbong “History” tv series. Maybe next you watch as well a Netflix episode on the Russian Tsar?
Which Soviet leader betrayed the Afghan government and pulled out the military again, led the Socialist Afghanistan to collapse under terrorists?
Which Soviet leader did everything the Americans told him, took IMF loans and put in market elements during an economic stagnation, just like pouring oil into a fire?
Ah, I know, Europeans gave a loud applause after his “performance” and gave that traitor a nobel prize and a passport to live in Germany. You would never admit the bastard caused any of this because you guys suck his D in your history lessons.
followed by many republics declaring independence
you mean re-introduced neofeudalism and cut off partnership with the only country that made sure they have energy, manufacturing and built powerstations, schools and infrastructure with them?
Go ask Moldavia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Usbekistan, the Baltics, … how their new independence feels like? Hell, ask Afghans the last time they flew into space?
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There’s more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There’s even more NATO border incoming that didn’t exist before. Staying, expending more of your people’s lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It’s only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say “therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure” or “therefore Russia’s capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term”? Again, what’s up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
I mean, who are the winners in a Cold War at all? You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
Got it.
For the world population, maybe. There’s an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can’t see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn’t manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There’s a lot of maybes and mights in there. That’s just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.
Not true. With the USSR went the need to support any social services in the US since there was no alternative ideology anymore, so it was a loss for the working class of the US, which is the majority. It was a rhetorical question, which you didn’t get.
Also btw, the USSR collapsed not because of internal strife and balkanization, that was the result. It collapsed because of the introduction of profit/market economy.
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
LMAO out of all of this you mention the Chernobyl disaster, which makes me think you learn Soviet history through your Britbong “History” tv series. Maybe next you watch as well a Netflix episode on the Russian Tsar?
Which Soviet leader betrayed the Afghan government and pulled out the military again, led the Socialist Afghanistan to collapse under terrorists?
Which Soviet leader did everything the Americans told him, took IMF loans and put in market elements during an economic stagnation, just like pouring oil into a fire?
Ah, I know, Europeans gave a loud applause after his “performance” and gave that traitor a nobel prize and a passport to live in Germany. You would never admit the bastard caused any of this because you guys suck his D in your history lessons.
you mean re-introduced neofeudalism and cut off partnership with the only country that made sure they have energy, manufacturing and built powerstations, schools and infrastructure with them?
Go ask Moldavia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Usbekistan, the Baltics, … how their new independence feels like? Hell, ask Afghans the last time they flew into space?