12
submitted 1 year ago by njaard@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Even if

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.

[-] coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.

[-] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

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?

I'm guessing the last time they flew into space was just before they brutally defeated and humiliated the red army.

They had a nice society before the USSR invaded, btw.

[-] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The last time they flew in space was when they cooperated with Soviets. And they didn't invade wtf? The red army was invited by the socialist Afghanistan government to fight the terrorist backed by the US. Which later actually invaded and then used the geological maps created and given to the Afghans by Soviets decades prior (where they hoped the people of Afghanistan will use them to built their economy) to extract resources lmao And finally fled from the airport in Kabul, which was built by the USSR...

They had a nice society before Mujahideen and the Taliban, financed by the US, btw. (Actually the Taliban at least prohibited drug trafficking contrary to yanks and nato fascists)

[-] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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. ๐Ÿ˜ 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.

this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32321 readers
570 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS