Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Russian propaganda is smarter than you think" video.

I think the main contention leftists have is that, in such a situation (where opposing one type of imperialism, Russian, requires supporting another type of imperialism, American), all you end up doing is showing your allegiance to "your team". You simply can't claim in good faith that you're being ancom or leftist. ---That might passively be your identity, but either active choice here is just an expression of pro-imperial sentiment. Their refusal to acknowledge their pro-US support for what it really is, is what annoys 'tankies' so much.
25
I mean, it's kind of hard not to use the "meat grinder" tactic when you have no geographical anchor points (maybe the Carpathians?) to defend from. Stalin was simultaneously paranoid and blase about his own generals and Hitler respectively, but he did use what he had at his disposal- keep the soldiers close to enemy lines so that their air raids take out their own, too. Part of the reason I think it's silly to call this the government's mismanagement is because this is simply how the Russian state- in all its iterations- has waged defensive war. There are no vast forests or mountains in European Russia, no Black Forest to recede into or Alps to hide within. Attrition isn't evidence of poor governance, it's evidence of wars on flatlands and steppes.
22
@MiStuSia16 Seems like nobody can answer my point. The person I originally commented on has fallen silent... Again: Was Stalin supposed to just let the Germans steamroll Poland and get right up to his border? Or was it smarter for him to give the USSR as big of an advantage as possible? Please answer my question. My point, by the way, wasn't about the brutality of Russian soldiers, but of the need to "ally" with the Germans, knowing they would destroy Poland either way. And it is rich that you're trying to make the Germans out to be better than the Soviets. They were nice to Russian civilians, too--- there is even a photo of a soldier sharing his last ration with a civilian woman. What you Poles consistently fail to comprehend that the Soviets were, in fact, better for the Poles than the Germans. Would you prefer an alternate history where they kept Poland? Sure, they would genocide the Poles out of existence forever.... but at least they had "class" and could run a country, unlike those Soviets! At least they kept their streets clean, all the easier to transport you to the chambers! Who cares if they turn Poland into Germany, at least they were polite! Your country's view of history is coloured so heavily by emotion that you honestly believe a regime set on wiping you from the face of the Earth for Lebensraum is somehow better than living under Russian rule. The only reason you're alive to bitch and moan about it too, is because the Russians weren't as brutal as the Germans.
4
@ravencadd Like it or not, diplomacy will be the final stage in this war. Even if (in a Western wet dream) Putin is ousted, it is unlikely that any version of Russia will accept (potentially indefinite) American military presence so close to its borders. So even in the unlikely case where Putin is ousted, the war will probably stall, then continue. Ultimately, something will need to be proposed. And, since your ideal version is off the table (Russia incapacitates itself by withdrawing, gives back all territories, allows Ukraine into NATO, etc), a compromise must be reached. I think that leaving Ukraine out of NATO, but able to ally with individual Western countries- like Finland currently- is the best way out of the conflict. Do you have any alternative ideas that don't risk re-escalating an eventual ceasefire??
2
@enriqueperezarce5485 I just want to point out that nobody has given me a straight reply to any of my points. They just spew whatever emotion-driven speech they have planned and leave. And they say Russians are the ones with bots...
2
@enriqueperezarce5485 Of course there were some failures- but that is an impossible standard that nobody else is held to. Is American island hopping useless because they lost a few battles? No! They won the Pacific War. the same way the Soviets won the European War. The strategy, if morale is high enough and with enough people, works.
2
By number or by percentage? I think Russia lost 12% of its male populace while Poland lost 16... not a huge different I think
1
@fjbz3737 First of all: use indentations. No one wants to read your text block. Second: "Leftism" is too broad a term to even try and classify or put strong boundaries around. the fact that you are trying to sell me a universally shared characteristic shows me how little of it you understand. A "belief in improving the well-being of people around the world" is meaningless, since it could apply to numerous right-wing ideologies as well--- (whether or not you think they work doesn't change the fact that you and a right-wing populist and/or a libertarian, under your "leftism" definition, share the same goal). "which is most practically conducive to that end"--- that, again, is your idea of well-being. I don't support the continuation of this war, at all, but I simply don't agree with the proposed solutions or actions. "Finlandization", for example, worked great for Finland and Russia, for decades. A neutral, non-NATO Ukraine would be a feasible solution for both sides. Zelensky himself is moving towards this conclusion as well. "And in this case, I would much rather America to occupy the status of global hegemonic superpower than Russia in its current state, in some hypothetical universe where it is" Why, exactly? Russia, for all its faults, doesn't have nearly the same penchant for destabilizing faraway governments as the US does. It is not ideologically driven to lecture other nations on how to live, which values to have. If the last 20 years are anything to go by, following Russia's advice for Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would have yielded a more stable Middle East region than what we currently have. If "Russia in its current state" is problematic to you, you should oppose the US' position as hegemon just as much, if not more- Yemen is far more severe than Ukraine, yet nobody cares. Afghan civilians are currently starving, Holodomor-style, due to American sanctions... yet Americans will never see Biden like they do Stalin, because he's on "your team." This is my original point. You fail to see that your values, applied to this war and into the future, are not creating a better world. They are just propping up one, equally brutal, imperial power, over another.
1
@justingibson7807 Nope, Russia only invaded after NATO announced that "Georgia will be a part of NATO". No consultation with Russia or Iran, just "yep let's do it". If you wanna counter with the neoliberal talking point "Russia doesn't have the right to tell any other country what to do!" -- then why did the US threaten nuclear war over Cuba, a sovereign nation, receiving weapons from another sovereign nation? The US clearly understands why nearby countries have legitimate concerns, but they don't respect them because they think they can get away with it.
1
@justingibson7807 Yes, it did. Stop lying. Secretary General de Hoop Sheffer, 2008: "We agreed today that both these countries will become members of NATO."
1
@vandarkholme8548 Well, if we are specifically looking at the consequences of imperialism, rather than the countries that do it, then yes Russian imperialism is far better. Their treatment of native people whom they encountered (possibly taken from the Mongols, or the fact that they have always lived with other tribes) is not rooted in a drive to 'spare the Indian, save the man'. Their philosophy is much more simple: we need this land as a buffer to protect ourselves from the East, and you're on it. Ally with us, and we will leave you alone. Don't, and we fight. Of course, many didn't ally, and many cultures were lost, but there was not a blind belief in the superiority of Russian culture and a need to 'civilize' the tribes. But even those that lost against the Kremlin got to keep their native language and culture for the most part. Case in point: there is no russian version of 'reservations,' and there are native republics that have mandatory schooling for all students (white included) in the native language). What can the us point to for its colonial legacy?
1
@justingibson7807 Yes... after the US sent nukes to Turkey, on the USSR's border. We simply did exactly what they had done.
1
@justingibson7807 Yes, it was. From NATO's website: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia.." LOL, "Putin????" You guys love doing that, reduce an entire country to a single man, No, Rt didn't tell me and Putin is a very busy head of state, it makes just as much sense as asking if Obama told you that bombing Libya was a good thing. To answer your original question-- NATO told me. Will you admit to me in the next comment that you lied?
1
@justingibson7807 The official title of the document is Bucharest Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008 Paragraph 23. When you find it, I want to see your first reply- "I'm sorry, I knowingly lied when I didn't even know if it was true". Or something similar. Well, even if you don't, we'll both know you did :)
1
@justingibson7807 Technically, no-- the Jupiter missiles were put in Italy and Turkey in 1961. Not even a full year, let alone "years".
1
@justingibson7807 It isn't a member because Russia acted swiftly. Do you see the issue here? You are using Georgia not being in NATO as a reason Russia should not be so aggressive-- but the example you gave only has that outcome because Russia postured aggressively. And Ukraine was not 'rejected', the open-door policy has remained the same, a "rejection" is never permanent, they just did not meet the criteria at the time. The US will take them whenever they meet the criteria.
1
@justingibson7807 What does this have to do with what we are talking about? You started by replying to me about NATO and how Russia was 'overreacting', that Ukraine and Georgia were never going to join anyway. I proved you wrong. Why are you shifting the topic instead of admitting you were wrong?
1
@justingibson7807 This contradicts what you said earlier, that they got "rejected." Why even tell me that? It changes nothing-- like you said, they could both join. So Russia wasn't over-reacting then?
1
@justingibson7807 Probably because of Russia's demographic issues, and because Ukraine was getting closer and closer to the goal. I don't think Russia cares about the EU that much, just doesn't want American wargames or weapons in the south of Russia.
1
@justingibson7807 Yes... that's exactly the problem. It cannot be kept open if there is to be peace in Europe. This is what I have been arguing- why did you try to tell me "well Georgia and Ukraine aren't in Europe"? Were you trying to convince me that should just stop? Because from what you just told me, it seems the US will never stop trying to get Ukraine or Georgia into its military bloc. Just as the US would not accept missiles in Cuba, Russia will not accept missiles in Ukraine. Or any other US presence there.
1
@justingibson7807 Also, why won't you admit that you were wrong? You just told me that "No one said Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO"... now you're saying "the door was still open". So which is it???
1
@justingibson7807 Which comment are you replying to with this? Nothing I said has anything to do with events of the war. What are you trying to do, drag me into an argument so you don't have to admit that you lied?
1
@justingibson7807 Hypocrite? Russia is not the one claiming to care about human rights and democracy, or 'upholding international law'. If the US gets to do these things unpunished, so do we. Deal with it. If you want Russia to face criminal justice, you will have to force the US to do it first.
1
@justingibson7807 You haven't answered MY question, and I asked it long before you. Will you admit that you lied-- and then deleted your comment to hide it? "I can't find it" my ass. I gave you the title of the document, proof that NATO wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO (like you said) all the way back in 2008.
1
@justingibson7807 I DID answer your question. "Probably because of Russia's demographic issues, and because Ukraine was getting closer and closer to the goal." Maybe next time don't leave 50 different replies, and put them into a single one. You're getting scatter brained, my friend:))
1
@justingibson7807 Lol no it's not better, Zelenskiy was listed in the Pandora Papers, he's as corrupt as they come. Several of his holdings were used to buy properties in London, off the books. Why would he, such a perfect President, need to hide that? In fact, in addition to corruption, his approval ratings before the war were very low, since he didn't really do anything he promised.
1
@justingibson7807 Will you admit that you lied, without even knowing whether your claim was true? You said "No one ever said Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO".
1
@justingibson7807 Sure. They're not innocent. Now will you admit that you lied?
1
@eiko4252 Maybe if the Germans hadn't come up with and finalized the plans all before telling Stalin, he'd have more options? The Soviets were informed through Rudolph von Schliche in May that the Germans planned to invade Poland. Put yourself in Stalin's position: you cannot stop the rapidly remilitarizing Germans, and have just been informed that they plan to expand their territory much closer to yours. Land is a zero-sum game, so you can either: Let them invade, until they reach your current borders, Or, you can make a pact with them, and put some distance between you and them (Poland is swallowed either way, morally the same). Which would you choose?
1
@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304 That's a lot of words to say, "I can't give a straight answer because I know you're right, so I'll just spew verbal diarrhea". I will ask again. What was Stalin, knowing in *March 1939 from von *Scheliha that Germany was going to invade Poland whether or not USSR got involved, supposed to do? He could either: Let Germany reach right up to the Soviet border, or put a buffer space between USSR and them. Please, answer the question. If you don't, you'll just be confirming what the real answer is.
1
@ErgonomicChair I have a few friends who I cannot convince of this contradiction: they, as you said, hate Nazis. But, they also support Bandera and see him as a hero... despite the fact that he worked with Nazis and, whatever you think his motivation was, if he had gotten his way, Ukrainians would not exist. But they cannot admit how foolish and naive he was. Must be glorified, for some reason
1
@Merugaf You will need to direct me to a source. I must admit a slight mistake, 37% had a "very posititve" view, another 26% had only a "mostly positive view". This data is from both 2009 polling and 2021 Radio Svoboda, international and Ukrainian source. (Links= deleted comment) Still not good when a majority of Galicians are willing to overlook the fact that Bandera was trained by the Abwehr. They seem not to realize that if Stepan succeeded, there would be no Ukraine. There would be German-populated Reichskommisariat Ukraine, though. A hero indeed. You seem to misunderstand. Finland and the USSR, later Russia, had decades of no issues provided Finland did not join NATO. All Ukraine had to do was not invite American troops into its country, and it couldn't even achieve that. Russia simply, just like Ukraine, doesn't want a hostile foreign power at its border.
1
Chomsky, I think? I've also seen Cato use it, so true to form, it is widely uses by anyone opposed to the continuation of the war, for any reason
1