Go back to reddit

Did you mean to say “autocracy?” Like another user said, aristocracy involves a class of nobles with inherited rights.

Now, the system China had before the CPC came to power, that could reasonably be described as an aristocracy. But literally one of the first things that happened after the communists came to power was that that class was forcibly eliminated and their land was redistributed to the people who worked it.

Leadership isn’t appointed in an aristocracy, it’s inherited, so you might have chosen the absolute worst descriptor. You could have used it as an adjective, maybe, but as the description of the structure itself it’s completely moronic. Yeah China isn’t an aristocracy because the positions aren’t inhereted, there we go your mind is changed.

Hold up, got anything to back up these assertions about Ukraine doing genocide?

Happy you asked! It would be wild to claim a country is committing an act of genocide - Specifically ethnic cleansing, pogroms and cultural erasure - Without having any underlying sources. Initially I’d point you towards this compilation of articles describing Ukraine before the media decided we needed to be propagandised to support it.
It should answer most of your questions.

And I reckon it’s terrible to threaten the neighbor who continually saber-rattles at you when not annexing whole chunks of your country, how dare they accept US aid under such circumstances. Russia is not at fault there at all (sarcastic).

This is a classic example of what I call a “Shapiro”. Some short vague comment that has tons of built-in assumptions and unstated assertions. I’m going to try to adress these, but by adressing them I am afraid I will allow you to simplify everything down to some “good/evil” dichotomy, as your statement clearly leads to. I lack the best word to describe this way of analysing geopolotics, the best one I can think of is: Redundant. As in it is superfluous, it makes the discussion itself useless, as an analysis it does nothing. So I’m also going to adress some of the simplifications when I can be bothered. Most of them are adressed by the compilation I linked you to though, so I’d really just recommend going through that one. An additional article: The far-right militias managed to force the people of the Luhansk republic to evacuate shortly before the invasion. Breaking peace treaties, bombing civilians until they leave… One might consider this a pretty decent casus belli. It is, at the very least, undoubtely ethnic cleansing.

Here’s the assumptions/assertions listed, as I see them:

• Russia is threatening Ukraine.
• Russia is pursuing brinksmanship (saber rattling).
• Russia was annexing ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.

I am going to assume that by “US aid” you mean membership into NATO and donations of military equipment.

• Russia often annexed ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.
• Russia has annexed large amounts of ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.
• I am stating that Russia is blameless in the conflict.

---

Russia is threatening Ukraine

I do not disagree. Russia stated that ukrainian membership into NATO was a red line. That is pretty clearly a threat and a serious one.

Worth mentioning: Despite being aware this was a stated Red Line for Russia, NATO pretended mebership was still an option and Zelensky likewise decided to continue to agitate for membership, despite being aware it was not possible. Now he does not state when he was made aware of this, but since NATO membership is not available to nations engaged in active conflicts, we can safely assume this occurred before the invasion.

Here is a comment giving some context as to why Russia might consider NATO membership a “red line”.

Now we might balk at a country daring to decide what another country does, however red lines are quite common. Obama set them. They are not uncommon. A longer articles giving some context about red lines.

Brinksmanship
Between this and the previous assumption there is yet another I have failed to mention: Russia is “wrong” to threaten Ukraine. “Right” and “wrong” aren’t really easy to discuss with regards to geopolitcs as it becomes a whole discussion of morality of its own. So I am not going to discuss this from a moral perspective, but from the perspective of Russias geopolitical interests and adress wether I personally consider the actions “reasonable” (about as subjective as morality, but you seem like a reasonable fellow, so I hope our antennas are somewhat aligned on basic reason) while trying to steer around morality.

The two comments I’ve linked you outline the foundation for my response here. From the resources given in those compilations it does not appear as if Russia is “saber rattling” but rather responding to aggression by a nuclear superpower that, since the inception of modern Russia, has sought to control the country.
Since I don’t know what you specifically have in mind when you’re talking of “saber rattling” it is hard for me to adress it better than this.

Russia was annexing ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.

and

Russia often annexed ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.

and

Russia has annexed large amounts of ukrainian territory before the war, which is why Ukraine sought “US aid”.

The only situations before the war I am aware of is the annexation of Crimea. I assume you’re also including the declaration of independence by the DPR and LPR as “russian annexation” because the republics were likely to be cooperating with Russia rather than the US.

It is correct that Russia formally annexed the crimean peninsula after 2014. I don’t really care about “formal” declarations, but rather material reality. The material reality is that, up to the US-backed coup in 2014, Crimea was in all practicality a part of Russia. The reasons for this stretch far back. The fact that it had been part of the USSR until the dissolution of the union and then remained De Facto under russian control until 2014, does not legitimise annexation in my eyes. This is completely subjective however. Many people base their geopolitics on “who used to own the piece of land?” As a socialist I am however far more interested in democratic representation of people. Therefore I view the formal annexation as “legitimate” or whatever “rules based international order”-style language you want to use for this, for the following reasons:

• The people living on the peninsula wanted to be part of Russia.
• The people living on the peninsula were afraid they would be persecuted by far-right ukrainian militias, as had been seen happening during the Maidan.
• The argument for the peninsula remaining in Ukraines control was that it had been part of Ukraine while Ukraine was in the Soviet Union.
  Since I do not consider “Historically it belonged to…” to be a valid reason for annexation, I do not consider it a valid counterargument either. I have not encountered substantial arguments against apart from “it used to belong to” and “the people of Ukraine want it”. If the people of crimea desires independence, then I do not see why they should not get it, just because people somewhere else base their national identity on having a piece of land. Especially when the main plan for that plot of land seems to be ethnic cleansing of those that live there.

Back to the two republics: They, since their declaration, been bombed by Ukrainian military and far-right militias, in breach of Minsk II and Minsk I. During the development of the political situation in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 the situation for the people living in the republics became more and more dangerous. After the invasion they voted to become part of Russia. I don’t know how “legitimate” the election is, but since they voted for independence before, were unable to defend themselves without russian intervention and things have since escalated, I struggle to see why it is unrealistic they would vote for such a thing. I know they certainly did not wish for membership in Ukraine.

One could just as easily flip the script: Ukraine is the one trying to annex large plots of land. Ukraine is the one to break treaties and rattle sabers.

Finally: For it to be true that Ukraine sought US aid due to Russian saber rattling, then the post-maidan government in Ukraine would have sought this aid after agressive posturing from Russia. However the US was closely involved with those who would become government members before the coup was carried out. The US was likewise present in Ukraine as soon as the maidan began. We can thus see that Ukraine did not seek aid in response, at best you could argue it sought it in expectation of aggression. One would then have to consider why Ukraine would expect aggression.

• I am stating that Russia is blameless in the conflict.

While Russia pursued many diplomatic solutions before the war and attempted to negotiate for peace several times over the years, I still do not consider Russia blameless. Apart from being a bigoted capitalist oligarch, Putin is also incredibly naive. He sought membership in EU in the ´00s. He sought membership in NATO. He did not expect the massive escalation that would come from the invasion. While I think it is right to defend the republics from far-right militias, and I think it is completely reasonable to draw a red line at NATO membership, I think the invasion was an overreaction. There was still other avenues of action available.

He could have done like Obama did and established a “no-fly-zone” and laughed when he saw a video of Zelensky sodomized with a bayonet. Or he could have fomented his own colour revolution.

what you seem to be cool about is with the us militarily funding white supremacist groups in ukraine to kill ethnic russian in the donetsk and luhansk. you’re so full of shit you can’t even say anything about past imperialist projects by the us, those are probably real and verified by the cia, but you would have said the same shit you’re saying now if this were vietnam. you’d be convincing me how the vietnamese are filthy red rats who’re no better than shit and that you’re doing a better job since you’re bringing democracy to them. you’re white, you know better than them. it’s a rule.

don’t come to me with bullshit moraline because i don’t want a single hit of that cia fabricated crap.

Here’s a longer response

they didn’t but that was the plan. if russia wouldn’t have invaded the idea would have been to fund paramilitary groups that do terrorist attacks. it’s the same fucking tactic they’ve used in xinjiang and many fucking other places. the difference is that russia didn’t let these right wing terrorists do their thang. thus the SMO started.

This might be the worst attempt at a rebuttal Ive ever seen. They got it from knowing about the countries the flags represent.

??

Thanks. I guess they’re trying to make it a thing?

Excellent illustration of my point. Thanks!