GoodEye8

Yeah, they're the non-vote parties. FPTP voting always devolves down to 2 parties, see Duverger's Law. Even if by some miracle a 3rd party wins (and continues winning) they will eventually kick one of the previous 2 parties out and take their place as the new party in the 2 party system. In practice if my memory doesn't fail me voting 3rd party hasn't mattered for over a century because the 2 main parties are so entrenched, so voting for 3rd party is more or less throwing away your vote.

Yes, political discussions are not as limited in options as voting and there absolutely should be a political discussion about the Democratic party. They suck, have sucked and will continue to suck, unless they change.

And I agree that there's no contradiction. I'd even go as far as to say there was no contradiction in voting for Harris and then tweeting "the democratic candidate sucks", because you have to vote for someone and Trump (clearly) was the worse option.

My point was rather that if you dislike a party and you don't vote for them then you are in support of the other party, even if you don't vote at all. The nuances get kicked out when it comes to voting.

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.

This is the bare minimum I'm going to do. You can find references to protesters being paid on the wiki page

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.

Another Russian talking point. Feel free to show me how Azov was still an ultranationalist entity in 2022.

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?

I guess you're capable of telling the difference between Russia's and Putins imperialistic interest, right? I'm going to stick with it's Putins imperialistic interest, not Russian. And he's doing a fabulous job by showing how his army was incapable of doing large scale invasions and his high tech arsenal can't beat decades old western tech, all an excellent showing how the only super power Russia has is its insane amount people they can throw in the grinder.

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.

I'm not ignoring that fact. I know that anything making Ukraine look bad won't come through the Ukrainian filter. I have no reason to think they'd filter Russia doing something incredibly stupid. Also source on Russia no longer putting their soldiers in the meat grinder (I guess technically they're not, they're now throwing Koreans into the grinder) and source Ukraine putting their soldiers in the meat grinder?

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.

So why is the war still going on?

BTW: Every state considers it justified to send outsits population into a war to secure its status as a sovereign.

Okay, that's justification for Ukraine to send its people into war considering their sovereignty is in danger. Whats the justification for Russia considering Ukraine isn't interest in taking over 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”.

You just justified Ukraine using its people defending the sovereignty of Ukraine so your point about the Ukrainian people is moot because they wouldn't be needed to throw their lives away if there wasn't a war.

Ukraine has beefed up their military substantially between 2014 and 2020. That didn’t happen without the west’s help.

Which ONCE AGAIN wouldn't have been necessary if not for Russian meddling. For fuck sake how many times do I need to repeat this same point over and over and over.

And NATO is no stranger in involving itself outside its stated goals as a “defense treaty” (See: Kosovo war).

And Kosovo was bullshit thing to use NATO for.

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.

That is an example of NATO not expanding when NATO wants to expand, which is usually the kind of bullshit argument Russian trolls make when they talk about NATO saber-rattling.

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.

Example of imperialism? The great imperialist nation of Turkey? That's not an example of NATO being used as imperialist tool. Do you even know what imperialism means? fuck it, I'm not commenting more on that, that's just beyond my capacity to handle stupidity.

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.

Kinda a weird accusation considering you have literally given zero examples of me using NATO propaganda, unless you think everything I say is NATO propaganda. Also weird to claim you know to not trust either imperialistic entity but literally present Russian propaganda as your argument.

In a two party system, especially when there's no clear "I don't like either" option then yes, nothing else exists. When you don't vote you're not saying "I don't like either party" you're saying "I don't care which party wins". If you don't care which party wins then you're in support of both parties.

It can also be a curriculum issue. For example, and for clarity sake I'm not American, I could say I was taught socialism in school. Some might call it a pretty progressive topic to teach, however if we get into the details it comes out very differently. What I was taught wasn't socialism but rather the vague history of socialism culminating with the idea that socialism doesn't work. More specifically I was taught there was this guy called Marx (and Engels) who came up with a labor theory (no actual information about what the theory contained) . Marx died before he could finish his work. Engels finished some of his work but Marx's theory was continued by Lenin. Lenin started the USSR and then Lenin died. Stalin took over, then we got WW2, cold war, Stalin died, era of stagnation, Afghan war, Chernobyl and the fall of the USSR - clearly socialism doesn't work.

Nothing factually wrong was taught but also nothing about actual socialism was taught. I'm sure the same could be done about Jim Crow laws, where you acknowledge something happened but then clearly gloss over all the horrific details.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Which is why opposing gun control makes no sense. If you're already taking firearm safety seriously then having regulation that verifies you're taking firearm safety seriously would make little to no difference to you.

If an American is against gun control I immediately assume they're not really a responsible gun owner.

Of course they don't. Free market (how theory imagines it) is not pro capitalism. Competition is counterproductive to the profit motive, which is why large corporations look to kill the competition whenever they can.

Also for whatever reason people seem to think freedom of speech is also freedom from consequences. Her freedom of speech was not infringed, she simply got fired because she decided to do a stupid thing in public.