I am genuinely confused by hexbear's opinion on the Ukraine war
I am genuinely confused by hexbear's opinion on the Ukraine war
What I have learned:
- Russia has already won the Ukraine war
- Which NATO started
- A lot of people in the West think that Ukraine should surrender
- Also Ukraine was the world's main provider of CSAM
- Also Ukraine is exploited by the West but if they can unite with Russia then their economy and everything else will finally be alright
It's literally like a bizarro world and everyone is over there agreeing with it. I'm genuinely confused by, who even are these people (what is the mixture of Russian bots / Russian-aligned ordinary people / confused Westerners / some other explanation.)
You're viewing part of a thread.
I’m not trying to represent all of Hexbear, my views differ from the norm (just as yours seems to differ from the lemmy.world norm).
Second, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m certain on everything. It just seems very clear to me that the current narrative is dangerous and risks leading to escalation beyond Ukraine and has already caused a lot of suffering, (I think in this I echo Mearsheimers views, see the recent interview on the Spectators Americano podcast). Wether it was intentional or accidental I purposely left open in my original comment because, like I said, it’s very hard to judge at this point. But given the US trackrecord it’s probably a healthy dosis of both overconfidence in their power as well as cynical intent.
To me it’s hard to imagine that after Russia put their army on the border and explicitly said, Ukraine stays neutral or war, that the US wasn’t aware of the consequences. Clearly Ukrainian lives were not on the forefront of their decision making process at that point. So then the question is what was.
But these are my personal opinions, and I’m happy to be convinced otherwise (but calling me a Russian bot is not very convincing I find).the current narrative is dangerous and risks leading to escalation beyond Ukraine and has already caused a lot of suffering
I would say it's all the shelling and rocket attacks and bombings, not so much the narrative.
In general I think trying to talk and understand the world is not a hostile act. If you're trying to deliberately distort honest conversation to justify something, then that's a bad thing, but just saying that some sincere narrative right or wrong can be a dangerous thing all on its own, I don't agree with.
To me it’s hard to imagine that after Russia put their army on the border and explicitly said, Ukraine stays neutral or war, that the US wasn’t aware of the consequences.
Bro
What if I put a couple of my friends on the border of your house, and explicitly said, hey if you try to do X Y or Z then I might have to kill you. What's your reaction? What's fair in that scenario? If you ask for some allies to come over because you plan on doing X Y and Z anyway and fuck the border-standers, does it all of a sudden become the allies' fault that any of that happened? What you're saying is just a very weird allocation of blame to me.
Like I say, what Mearsheimer says on this issue actually makes a good deal of sense to me, but what you're saying here is very different from what he says about it, as far as I know. I think one of the critical issues is whether the whole thing was a "ploy" by the West -- he definitely doesn't think that, that I'm aware of. Where did you get that idea? It definitely doesn't seem to me that fighting between Russia and various former-USSR states needed any additional help in order to develop, although I'm sure the US is happy it's happening and happy to help it go badly for Russia.
Clearly Ukrainian lives were not on the forefront of their decision making process at that point.
I think it's relevant what the Ukrainians think. Are you saying that rejecting Russia's orders for what they were and were not allowed to do, knowing that Russia might attack them as a result, was not their decision but someone else's? What do you think they think about it?
Here's a little excerpt, somewhat related, from "Sky Above Kharkiv" by Serhiy Zhadan:
"And I'd like to make another point. I was rather skeptical of the current government. I was struck by one particular thing. The elections of 2019 brought a lot of young people to power -- not my peers (I'm a far cry from being young) but a bunch of political youngsters who didn't belong to dozens of parties or hadn't worked for all kinds of shady cabinets of ministers. 'But why do these young people,' I thought, 'act like old functionaries from the Kuchma era? Where did their childish urge to make a quick buck and flaunt it come from? Why aren't they trying to be different?' Thing is, I personally had the chance to do what I still consider rather constructive, useful things with a lot of them -- everyone from ministers to mayors and governors. Nonetheless, I'd look toward the Parliament building and ask myself, 'Why aren't you trying to be different?'
"Now [in wartime] with the naked eye you can see them trying to be different. Advisers, speakers, ministers, negotiators, officers, mayors, and commanders -- these forty-year-old boys and girls whose generation has been dealt the cruel lot of having to stand up for their country. And this applies no less (and possibly even more) to the millions of soliders, volunteer fighters, and just regular people pitching in, people shedding the swampy legacy of the twentieth century, like mud falling off new, yet well-chosen combat boots. Young Ukrainian men and women -- that's who this war of annihilation is being waged against. And then, in contrast, are the heads of Russia, Belarus, America, and Germany. The first two are old delusional geezers from the past century who look a lot like old Russian armored vehicles, but they're old. And they're Russian, which, in itself, does little to recommend a vehicle. Then there are the latter two -- they're cautious office clerks, retired capitulators who aren't brave enough to admit that they, too, are involved in what's going on."
What do you think started, and kept WWI going, narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder. With the result that an entire generation of boys and men was gone for basically nothing.
What if I put a couple of my friends on the border of your house, and explicitly said, hey if you try to do X Y or Z then I might have to kill you.
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I'm sorry. If your response is to call the police, there is no police in the world of international politics, you have to play the hand you're dealt.
And in the case of Ukraine this was sadly a very bad hand, that is why I don't blame Ukraine for much. You could of course blame Ukraine for being lured by the power of the US, and that they could thus safely ignore dire warnings from Russia. But as they say, with great power comes great responsibility, so I choose to put the blame at the hands of Russia and the US.
What do you think started, and kept WWI going
- An entanglement of defensive allegiances
- Increased industrialization meaning that nations could field an army undergoing massive attrition for years and years without suffering a crippling lack of production at home, and
- Lack of understanding on the part of political leaders of how the face of war had changed
narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder.
I mean… not really. Surely, at the time, the “dangerous” narrative was anything against the war. To me, allowing a freer flow of ideas would have helped to resolve the war sooner, and deciding that certain narratives were dangerous and should be stayed away from (leading to difficulty in understanding what was happening) was a factor that made things worse, not better. No?
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I'm sorry.
I am glad that you are not involved in the foreign policy of either Ukraine or any country I care about. There is realism, sure; the world is not always a comic book where being righteous is enough. Then, also, there is cowardice, and then beyond that there is saying that someone else who is rejecting cowardice is to be blamed (along with anyone who gives them assistance in standing up) for danger they find themselves in as a result.
Ukraine seems likely to be able to hold on to a significant chunk of their territory and self determination, after deciding to pay a heavy heavy price for it, in homes and cities and money and lives and anything else. You can take your condescending stuff about realism and whose decision that was, and what kind of lives under Russian rule they should be resigning themselves to instead, and shove it up your ass.
You seem to conflate questioning a narrative with banning a narrative, I have the intent nor the means. I value being able to have an open discussion on topics as important as war, especially based on substance rather than resorting to personal insults and such.
No, I'm disagreeing with the idea of describing a narrative as "dangerous" as a reason to criticize it, instead of whether it's true or not. To me, whether it's a sincere and accurate description of the world is the main thing.
I'm being rude to you because, to me, you're being wildly insulting to the Ukrainian people. Sorry. Maybe it is uncalled for. But I know some Ukrainians. Telling them to lie down to Russian aggression because of "realism," and criticizing the resistance their country is putting up, is way more insulting than anything I've said to you.
that line of reasoning essentially makes every single US invasion ok. and every single oppression okay. Because threats work and fuck you for being weaker.
Accepting how the world works is not the same as saying it’s moral.
If someone threatens to shoot you, you saying it’s immoral is not a practical defense, unless there is some kind of higher power like a justice system with a police to enforce it. But the entire point of international politics is that such a force does not exist, just countries with interests.
I mean the evidence exists that NATO is a substantially higher power here
Also, as I said, there’s a huge difference between “I know it’s not an ideal outcome but I’m scared and want to save my skin” - I won’t say someone’s always wrong for saying that, by any means - and saying to someone else who’s fighting and suffering to defend themselves “I know it’s not an ideal outcome but you should be scared, and accept it to save your skin.” It’s like cowardice by proxy. Especially while they’re winning.
NATO is still a collection of nation states with interests, being powerful does not mean you can be trusted. (As the US has shown multiple times)
The people actually fighting this war, don’t want to, they need to be forcibly conscripted by the Ukrainian government, I have met multiple people that can no longer renew their pasport because the Ukrainian government (and western governments by extension) want them to die at the front.
And finally Ukraine is losing, and probably always was, the economic and manpower difference is just too big. There was a point in the summer of 2022 where Ukraine had a position to get a deal on relatively good terms, and there actually was a peace process going on. But somehow this broke down, I’ve heard rumors that it was the UK or the US that convinced/coerced Zelensky to walk away. I really hope that isn’t true because that would mean they have a lot of blood on their hands, and mostly Ukrainian.
The plot thickens
Ukrainians I know do not agree with your assessment of blame, to put it mildly
Which direction is the front line moving over the course of the last year? I am curious what your picture is of the reality on the ground. Before the US aid package came through, it was 100% fair to say Ukraine was losing or on the verge of starting to lose, but now is very different on any time scale you could select. In my reality at least. Why do you say they are losing?
Follow up question, where do you get your information? From media (which?), from Lemmy, where?
https://www.ft.com/content/d7e95021-df99-4e99-8105-5a8c3eb8d4ef
https://youtu.be/slkn2-N3oR0?si=d9Z_4KEvKS5kYXjp
If you read between the lines of ft articles it becomes quite clear that the manpower problem is almost insurmountable, but there are also other articles from nyt or Dutch or German mainstream media that try to package it positively but can not hide the underlying problems. And then there is John Mearsheimer who gives a higher level overview, that to me sketches quite a clear picture of Ukraines prospects.
Plus I like to listen to “war nerd radio” podcast. It’s not a news source perse, but they discuss the Ukraine war sometimes and they seem to be better at predicting what is to come than most news papers. For example they were rightfully quite skeptical about the great summer offensive of 2023 whereas other sources were promising the conquest of Crimea.
war nerd radio
Holy shit holy shit
Is that Gary Brechner? I had no idea he was even still around, if it is; I liked him quite a lot, like a million years ago
You are citing people I generally agree with, but I do not agree with what Mearsheimer is saying here. You're also pointedly ignoring my question about how the front line is moving.
Just to take what I think of Mearsheimer's points in lightning round:
- He talked about striking the homeland and escalation -- the US's approval for strikes inside Russia is very limited, for exactly this reason
- He talks about S-400s mooting any strikes anyway, when Ukraine has been blowing up S-400s. They don't seem to be this dominating force for defending even themselves let alone the area where they're placed
- Concerns about manpower are real, but also, they've been that way since the jump and the fucking front line hasn't gone anywhere. It's possible that Ukraine will get ground down over time but it hasn't happened yet and during the ammunition shortage would have been the most likely time for it to happen.
- He talks about the motivation for strikes inside Russia to be "to up the ante" because Ukraine isn't winning -- it's just a weird framing. I don't think that is the motivation; I think Ukraine just needs to strike at forces that are attacking them instead of suddenly going hands-off as soon as something's 5 km across the border from them.
IDK man. I'm not convinced. Want to answer the question about movement of the front line? And is this stuff in answer to my question about where you get your information? These people are generally pretty highly qualified people in my view, yes.
For example they were rightfully quite skeptical about the great summer offensive of 2023 whereas other sources were promising the conquest of Crimea.
Yeah that sounds pretty accurate from what I remember of Brechner. Just like Mearsheimer he has a record of having been accurate about the future, in retrospect, which is a pretty fuckin difficult thing to do.
Yes those are my sources and yes it is Gary Brechner aka the war nerd, he is sadly getting old but I really enjoyed his recent series on the us civil war.
I didn’t answer because I don’t know. I have heard it theorized that Russia is depleting the Ukrainian forces and building up behind the lines for a summer offensive, but also that the recent reshuffle of the Russian Security Council means that Putin expects the war to last until at least 2025. It is mostly speculation so not really a value add.
On all the details, I am just like most people dealing with limited information. And it’s hard to get a good idea what’s happening on the frontlines and on the broader strategic battle field. But there are sources I trust and sources that have shown to be at best incompetent and at worse straight up propaganda. This might be one of those rare morally uncomplicated wars, but the fact that the loudest voices in support of Israel are also oft the loudest voices in support of further escalations with Russia makes me skeptical.
narrative
Why would Joe Biden provide tools of narration to all those WW1 powers