Fixed Elon's meme

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

58 comments

People act as if he's a supervillain. The other person literally said that the war is happening "because he felt like it". How is that not supervillain logic? How does that not abstract away that Putin acts in the political interest of a national state?
I'm not trying to argue for sympathy for that asshole. I just want people to think a teensy bit about the fact that states do things out of political calculations and interests. Not because one guy "feels like it".
- How quickly people forget it's called Putins "war of choice" for a reason.
  
  What reason is that exactly, then?
  
  The fact that Putin is the one who started this war? This war wouldn't be a thing if a) Russia didn't annex Crimea, b) Russia didn't send "totally not Russian troops" into Donbas and c) Russia didn't do a full invasion of Ukraine. Not to mention this war would be over tomorrow if Putin withdrew his troops.
  Putin started this and Putin can end this, it's all his choice.
  
  So... any idea why "Putin" supposedly did all that?
  I'm not asking for justifications. It's just so weird to me that people apparently think that
  Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)
  Putin doesn't need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don't do shit without reason)
  And the moment I'm trying to understand the situation a bit better, I'm called a Putin troll, a fascist and get downvoted into oblivion.
  
  So... any idea why "Putin" supposedly did all that?
  Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government. Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.
  Putin does what he wants in Russia as if he was an absolute monarch. (Yes, the elections were iffy, but he has a lot of support in Russia and the Duma still exists)
  But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don't qualify for the election. The other "suitable" electoral candidates exists solely to keep the up the appearance of democracy. The Duma also exists to keep up appearances. And the reason Putin has a lot of support is because he has manufactured consent through the state owned media. He's also sowing indifference in the opposition by publicly eliminating opponents to indicate that this is what happens if you oppose him. He is ruling unopposed.
  Putin doesn't need any reason to make Russia do things. (Nations don't do shit without reason)
  What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him. If you have an autocratic leader the state does what the leader wants. Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that's the only reason the Russian state needs.
  
  Euromaidan. Russian-aligned leader got kicked and in its place was taken by a pro-EU government
  "Pro-EU" is one way of putting it. Ukraine became an economic and militaristic threat to Russia.
  Putin lost control over Ukraine and that was unacceptable to him.
  Sorry, this kind of narrative is again way too much "great man theory" for my tastes.
  But he does? His opposition either magically disappears or suddenly don't qualify for the election.
  Yes, it's a very obvious example of power politics in electoral politics. But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him. Putin is acting in the name of a sovereign nation. Individualising his goals and behaviors (acting as if it's the whims of a person) is not helping if you want to understand the situation.
  What do you mean? Trump is literally slapping tariffs on its neighbors and nobody is stopping him.
  And there are reasons for him to do so. It's a strategy to further his goals. I'm not claiming that the strategy is good or that I align with the goals, but the are there and it's important not to lose track of them.
  Putin wants to regain control of Ukraine and that's the only reason the Russian state needs.
  Imperialism meaning to extend the power of a nation for its own benefit beyond its borders. This can be in militaristic nature by invasion, but also in economic nature via economical warfare.
  Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn't be such a big issue).
  I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west's imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can't condone.
  If Russia loses, Ukraine's economy will be so crippled and its population will be so decimated that it has no other choice than to take credit and be exploited from European companies. It will be like what happened in Greece, but 100 times worse. Selensky will be ok, as he'll most likely get some position at some board, but in any case: the Ukrainian people (the people whose interests are most aligned with mine) will lose in any case.
  
  "Pro-EU" is one way of putting it.
  Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that's arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you're willing to view the events in good faith
  But there are still generals and ministers surrounding him.
  What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putins allies but didn't agree with the invasion? You're quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.
  Once you accept that definition, you see that the west is an imperialist player, too (otherwise, the US dropping out of Ukraine wouldn't be such a big issue).
  The US dropping out isn't a big issue because of economics issues, it's because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid. Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.
  I agree that Russia is imperialist and I disagree with their goals, as they disalign with mine. But I disagree with the west's imperialist goals, too. In the end the Ukrainian and Russian people are pawns in the imperialist games of nations, which I can't condone.
  And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.
  Now Ukraine either ends up under the iron thumb of Russia (much like Belarus) or Ukraine ends up economically dependent on the EU. Of the two choices IMO it's pretty clear which is a more favorable outcome.
  
  Considering the purpose of Euromaidan that’s arguably the most reasonable way to put it if you’re willing to view the events in good faith
  I disagree. I'm far from an expert on Euromaidan, but from what I gathered, the perspective of the Donbas is widely ignored by most western media. I only managed to find articles in German, so you'll have to excuse me, but if you're interested, you'll probably find a way to translate those:
  https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/mehr-aufstand-wagen/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/wir-haetten-schon-auf-der-krim-angreifen-muessen/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/rechtsfreier-raum/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/charkow-terror-gegen-regimekritiker/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/ich-will-keinen-faschismus-vor-meiner-haustuer/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/wir-bezahlen-mit-unserem-blut-fuer-die-wirtschaftskrise-europas/ https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/nichts-dringlicher-als-frieden/
  Those articles suggest that the Euromaidan was not only a "pro EU" thing, but can be understood as an attempt of ultranationalist Ukrainians to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. The same journalist said in an interview (sorry, in German as well) that she interviewed pro Maidan activists in 2014 and that she can't imagine that the rebellion was this coordinated without the possibility of outside forces supplying training and resources to the combatants.
  Even the Atlantic Council claimed that "Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence" in 2018. I think it would be a stretch to accuse that think tank of Russian propaganda.
  What happened to Prigozhin after he decided to oppose Putin? Or all the oligarchs who were Putin's allies but didn’t agree with the invasion? You’re quick to throw shade at Euromaidan but then act completely oblivious when it comes to Putin leading Russia.
  Sorry if I failed to make my point clear. My point isn't that Putin isn't an autocrat. My point is that Putin is acting as a state's sovereign. He's not acting out of his private interest, but out of the interest of a nation.
  The US dropping out isn’t a big issue because of economics issues, it’s because of militaristic reasons as in the US is cutting military aid.
  Never said that it was.
  Ukraine will worry about the economy when they no longer have to worry about their independence and the only way they get to keep their independence is if they get military aid.
  Yeah, the independence of the Ukrainian state. I don't think that the interests of the Ukrainian state align with the Ukrainian people. Especially considering that the latter are currently dying in the name of the former. And if the former gets its "independence", it will have done so at an incredible cost of human lives. And I doubt that all the debt from military aid (those aren't "presents" from the west) will lead to fulfilling lives for Ukraine's population in the future.
  Yes, the "bad guys" are bad. But the "good guys" don't act out of the kindness of their hearts, either.
  And why are they pawns in an imperialistic game? Because Russia meddled in Ukrainian affairs. Would I want Ukraine to be truly independent? Yes. But thanks to Russia that is not a possibility. Had Russia not meddled Ukraine would have a far more neutral position on the world stage.
  Their "pawn-ness" started way before 2022, when NATO did their sable-rattling in Ukraine. They can't afford a neutral position. Just like Taiwan can't and Vietnam or Cuba couldn't.
  
  I disagree. I’m far from an expert on Euromaidan, but from what I gathered, the perspective of the Donbas is widely ignored by most western media. I only managed to find articles in German, so you’ll have to excuse me, but if you’re interested, you’ll probably find a way to translate those:
  I'm not ignoring the counter-protests in the east. To my knowledge most of the ones that happened during Euromaidan either had people paid to "protest" or they could barely get people together to protest. Most of the eastern protests happened after Euromaidan and considering how quickly Russia jumped into those regions I wouldn't be surprised if they were a front to destabilize those regions.
  Those articles suggest that the Euromaidan was not only a “pro EU” thing, but can be understood as an attempt of ultranationalist Ukrainians to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. The same journalist said in an interview (sorry, in German as well) that she interviewed pro Maidan activists in 2014 and that she can’t imagine that the rebellion was this coordinated without the possibility of outside forces supplying training and resources to the combatants.
  I'm also not ignoring the influence of nationalists and ultranationalists in Euromaidan, however it doesn't change the nature of the protest because it started as protest against not signing the EU deal and it ended with a pro-EU government (and not an ultranationalist government). The ultranationalists actually started losing popularity the moment Euromaidan ended and over the years they've been slowly been rooted out from where-ever they dug into.
  Sorry if I failed to make my point clear. My point isn’t that Putin isn’t an autocrat. My point is that Putin is acting as a state’s sovereign. He’s not acting out of his private interest, but out of the interest of a nation.
  When you have an autocratic leader the state becomes an extension of their will. They can use the state for the interest of the nation or they can use the state for their own interests. I don't consider myself so well versed in Putinomics to know when Putin is acting out of self-interest and when Putin is acting in the interest of the Russian nation. If you can somehow tell the difference, good for you. I personally don't see how the war is in the interest of Russia (the nation). Sending your young people into the meat grinder is not in the interest of the nation (Ukranians on the front will tell you that Russia just keeps sending troops wave after wave straight into machinegun fire). Not retrieving your wounded is not in the interest of the nation. People struggling to put food on the table is not in the interest of the nation. I could keep going on about things that don't affect the average Russian but I think I've made my point how this war is by no means in the interest of the nation, Russian people are also suffering because of this senseless war that Putin could end at any moment.
  Yeah, the independence of the Ukrainian state. I don’t think that the interests of the Ukrainian state align with the Ukrainian people. Especially considering that the latter are currently dying in the name of the former. And if the former gets its “independence”, it will have done so at an incredible cost of human lives. And I doubt that all the debt from military aid (those aren’t “presents” from the west) will lead to fulfilling lives for Ukraine’s population in the future.
  Yes, the “bad guys” are bad. But the “good guys” don’t act out of the kindness of their hearts, either.
  A completely irrelevant point considering this discussion started with the statement that this war wouldn't even happen if not for Russia. People wouldn't be losing their lives if Russia never invaded in the first place. Military aid wouldn't be necessary because there would be nobody to defend from. It all comes down to the fact that none of this would have happened if Russia hadn't started it.
  Their “pawn-ness” started way before 2022, when NATO did their sable-rattling in Ukraine. They can’t afford a neutral position. Just like Taiwan can’t and Vietnam or Cuba couldn’t.
  I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but this is where I'm just going to call you a Russian propagandist because you're either deliberately or ignorantly presenting Russian talking points. There is no NATO saber-rattling. NATO does not expand unless the country in question wants NATO to expand. Finland and Sweden are prime examples. NATO would've loved for those 2 countries to join, especially during the cold war. Bases literally in striking distance from Leningrad and Moscow? If it was up to NATO that's 100% expansion. But it wasn't. Finland had Finlandization and Sweden didn't join out of solidarity for Finland. Even after the cold war Finland and Sweden didn't want to join NATO until Russia invaded Ukraine.
  As for Ukraine. You can look up the polls, Ukraine didn't want to join NATO until Russia annexed Crimea, then within a matter of months the sentiment went from "I don't want to join NATO" to "I want to join NATO".
  And for NATO itself, NATO was probably on the verge of dissolution before the Russian invasion. When Trump started talking about stepping out of NATO other countries started questioning if NATO is even necessary anymore. Russian invasion is what has reinvigorated NATO. As with the last two points, it always ends up coming back to Russia being a fucking shithead to its neighbors.
  And if we get back to 2014, when all of this started, it didn't start because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It started because Ukraine wanted to join the EU. So NATO isn't even the reason this is happening.
  Now, feel free to take your Russian talking points and fuck off.
  
  To my knowledge most of the ones that happened during Euromaidan either had people paid to "protest" or they could barely get people together to protest.
  Sorry, that just reeks of propaganda to me. Donezk has a distinct national identity from before it was declared to be a part of Ukraine. Additionally, the region came under economic pressure through the talks between Kiew and Europe, which would explain why there would be protests erupting in 2014. Stating that these protestors were paid is a highly spuriops claim without sources.
  The ultranationalists actually started losing popularity the moment Euromaidan ended and over the years they've been slowly been rooted out from where-ever they dug into.
  When was that supposed to happen? Back in 2022, Selensky spoke at the Greek parliament, accompanied by the Azov battalion. Since you accuse me of spouting propaganda: this claim seems like propaganda to me, as well.
  I personally don't see how the war is in the interest of Russia (the nation).
  Russia wants to assert its status as a super power in a world where the US don't allow for other super powers beside them. I thought it was well established that Russia has imperialistic interests, wasn't it?
  (Ukranians on the front will tell you that Russia just keeps sending troops wave after wave straight into machinegun fire).
  Ignoring the fact that what you're going to hear from Ukrainian soldiers will be heavily filtered by Ukraine's department of defense: AFAIK, That's not (or no longer) Russia's strategy. They're currently very slow and methodical in kettling in their military targets. Ukraine is currently the one who puts their soldiers in the meat grinder by not evacuating Russia's targets after they are considered to be lost.
  Not retrieving your wounded is not in the interest of the nation. People struggling to put food on the table is not in the interest of the nation.
  Yeah, that's a good deterrent for war. So why do you think the war is still going? Because Putin is evil? I just don't buy that childish logic which goes against any serious political analysis of anything.
  BTW: Every state considers it justified to send outsits population into a war to secure its status as a sovereign. To a state that's currently at war, human lives are nothing but a kind of resource to be used to reduce the enemy's (human) resource. That's what a war is. No matter if you're Putin, Selensky or Wilhelm II.
  A completely irrelevant point considering this discussion started with the statement that this war wouldn't even happen if not for Russia.
  Maybe, if you consider my point on the Ukrainian people (that should only give you context why I'm skeptical of Selensky). But the fact that the "good guys" are no angels definetly has something to do why "Putin just won't stop".
  I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but this is where I'm just going to call you a Russian propagandist because you're either deliberately or ignorantly presenting Russian talking points.
  Ukraine has beefed up their military substantially between 2014 and 2020. That didn't happen without the west's help. And NATO is no stranger in involving itself outside its stated goals as a "defense treaty" (See: Kosovo war). I also don't get how Sweden's and Finland's joining of NATO has anything to to with whether or not NATO provoked Russia. It is however a great example how NATO is used as an imperialist tool by its members, when you look at what Erdogan got out of Sweden joining NATO.
  You're accusing me of repeating Russia's propaganda, I'm accusing you of repeating NATO's propaganda. But at least I know that you shouldn't trust either imperialist.
  
  Jesus Christ, did the KGB just activate you? I love how you present a single newspaper that "suggests" something and then pat your back.
  BTW, a state leader doesn't have his opponents just die in prison without investigation...
- It seems you are the one arguing he's a super villain, not the rest. And don't you dare argue Doom is not a supervillain because he does things "out of political calculations and interests".
  
  It seems you are the one arguing he's a super villain, not the rest.
  How does that work if my stance is literally that "Wars don't happen just because one guy feels like it" and sthe reply is "yu-uh!"?
  
  Never said yu-uh. Same as didn't say Putin is a super villain.
  You're only going around trying to have people to say "Putin has good reasons for genocide" and people ain't buying it.
  
  You didn't, but they did. Didn't you read the comments?
  You're only going around trying to have people to say "Putin has good reasons for genocide"
  When did I ray anything of the sort? I can't help but see this as a bad faith attempt of character assassination. I think an apology is in order.
  
  Nobody said he's a supervillain only you.
  I DEMAND an apology.
  
  Bye, troll
  
  Says the troll himself, lol

58 comments