4 ms·

So what is your solution? The ruling regime in Russia has already neutralized all opposition politicians, stifled free speech, streams endless propaganda to it

So what is your solution? The ruling regime in Russia has already neutralized all opposition politicians, stifled free speech, streams endless propaganda to its population, and continues to send thousands of men to die in another country, in a war that it started. How should the world react to that? More to the point, how should Russians react?

protomolecule 3y ago
"How should the world react to that?" The world? Let me quote Cambridge study from October 2022 [0]: "75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% in Francophone Africa, 62% in Southeast Asia continue to view the country [Russia] positively in spite of the events of this year." Here is some analysis of the reasons why it is the case. [1] As an illustration you can look how the countries of the world voted on the Russia's resolution on "Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance"[2]: Yes: 118 | No: 49 The 49 countries who voted 'No' are the Ukraine (obviously), the US, the EU and NATO members, and some countries that depend on the US and the EU. [0] https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/a-world-divided/ https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/a-world-... [1] https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/5-reasons-why-much-of-the-global-south-isnt-automatically-supporting-the-west-in-ukraine/ https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/5-reasons-why-much-of-th... [2] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4030705?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4030705?ln=en
- fractallyte 3y ago
  You're only showing that a large number of countries don't have the moral backbone to condemn Russian aggression. This is not about the "Global South" or the "collective West". Ukraine was invaded by a nuclear "superpower" - a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Its people are subjected to forced deportations and genocide. Russia's actions are those of a terrorist nation, and I expect you and everyone else to condemn it without reservation. I hope that is clear.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    That's again a frivolous use of the words 'terrorist' and 'genocide'.
    - fractallyte 2y ago
      https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/en/news/2023-07-27-1 https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/en/news/2023-07-27-1 [Updated Report on Russia's Commission of Genocide in Ukraine] Which organization is the author of this report? "The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights is a unique international consortium of parliamentarians, scholars, jurists, human rights defenders, NGOs, and students united in the pursuit of justice, inspired by and anchored in Raoul Wallenberg’s humanitarian legacy – how one person with the compassion to care and the courage to act can confront evil, prevail, and transform history."
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        "Principal Author Professor Kristina Hook is Assistant Professor of Conflict Management at Kennesaw State University’s School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding, and Development <...> She previously served as a U.S. Department of State policy adviser for mass atrocity prevention, as a nonresident research fellow at the Marine Corps University, and as a U.S. Presidential Management Fellow. She is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center." I've read the bit about “We Can Do It Again”, if Ms. Hook resorts to direct lies from the start it gives me serious doubts that the rest of the report is any more truthful. But I could tell that from her affiliations alone.
        fractallyte 2y ago
        You continue to try to justify a genocidal aggressor nation, and this discussion risks degenerating into a flame war, so I'll stop here.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    "and genocide" Perhaps, you should take a more critical look at your sources. Look at this NYT article, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-glide-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukrai... See the big picture at the top? Clearly it's some kind of mall damaged by senseless and cruel Russian strike that cannot have any other purpose but to terrorize population of Kharkiv into submission. Next look at the first video here: https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 The place should look familiar, only now you can see destroyed MLRS vehicle (there were two, but the second one got evaporated: https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150), the likes of which were used to fire at the center of the Russian city Belgorod. Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches"): https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 And one more video from Russian city of Belgorod: https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/41262 https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/41262
- mopsi 3y ago
  > The world? Yes, the world. Cherrypicking indicators like "respondents in Francophone Africa" doesn't change the simple fact that the majority of the world disapproves what Russia is doing and the attitude towards Russia took a sharp turn towards negative in 2022: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-rebuke-invasion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re... As a general rule, the support for Russia is tied to how shitty a place is. The more successful a country has been at developing a good place to live in, the less they support Russia. Why is that so? If you want to dig into UN voting records, then look at key votes related to Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... The resolution "reiterates its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, and calls for a cessation of hostilities." 141 countries in favor, 7 against: Belarus, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria. But - you didn't answer the question that was asked.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 2y ago
    It costs nothing for a government to vote for a resolution in the UN. The countries where most of the world's population lives have contributed nothing to the Ukrainian war effort and happily continue to buy Russian wheat, fertilizer of fossil fuels. In fact, even France and Germany continue to buy Russian natural gas (only now delivered via LNG ships).
    - mopsi 2y ago
      "The countries where most of the world's population lives" is another funny metric like Francophone Africa. Most of the world's population lives in countries that have very little to contribute in the first place, because poverty and fertility are directly associated. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, but what aid do you expect from their tiny military that has no tanks, no air defense and no artillery to speak of? While countries in the Ramstein contact group supporting the defence of Ukraine represent only 15% of world's population, they produce the majority of global economic output. I'd say that's a far more meaningful metric. So again, why is that the more free, developed and productive a country is, the less they support Russia?
protomolecule 2y ago
"So what is your solution?" Both Russia and the West swallow their pride, drop the arrogance and come up with the new security arrangement in the Europe that addresses the security concerns of Russia and of the countries that feel threatened by Russia.
- mopsi 2y ago
  That says very little. Given the dynamics of military balance in Europe since 1991 due to the massive reduction of forces on the European side, what would the contents of such arrangement be and what would guarantee that Russia adheres to the arrangement more than they did to the previous one signed in 1975? Unless you propose a major militarization of Europe (which no-one here is interested in, frankly), I don't see how this could mean anything less than a demilitarization of Russia, including almost total destruction of nuclear arsenal, to ensure a balance and equal footing with Europe, to correct the mistake made in 1991 when Russia was left with the huge Soviet arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons.
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    "demilitarization of Russia, including almost total destruction of nuclear arsenal" That would certainly address Russia's security concerns.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        "I'd appreciate an actual answer instead of useless diversions, if you are capable of providing one." @dang

protomolecule 3y ago

"How should the world react to that?" The world? Let me quote Cambridge study from October 2022 [0]: "75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% in Francophone Africa, 62% in Southeast Asia continue to view the country [Russia] positively in spite of the events of this year." Here is some analysis of the reasons why it is the case. [1] As an illustration you can look how the countries of the world voted on the Russia's resolution on "Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance"[2]: Yes: 118 | No: 49 The 49 countries who voted 'No' are the Ukraine (obviously), the US, the EU and NATO members, and some countries that depend on the US and the EU. [0] https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/a-world-divided/ https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/a-world-... [1] https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/5-reasons-why-much-of-the-global-south-isnt-automatically-supporting-the-west-in-ukraine/ https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/5-reasons-why-much-of-th... [2] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4030705?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4030705?ln=en

fractallyte 3y ago
You're only showing that a large number of countries don't have the moral backbone to condemn Russian aggression. This is not about the "Global South" or the "collective West". Ukraine was invaded by a nuclear "superpower" - a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Its people are subjected to forced deportations and genocide. Russia's actions are those of a terrorist nation, and I expect you and everyone else to condemn it without reservation. I hope that is clear.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  That's again a frivolous use of the words 'terrorist' and 'genocide'.
  - fractallyte 2y ago
    https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/en/news/2023-07-27-1 https://www.raoulwallenbergcentre.org/en/news/2023-07-27-1 [Updated Report on Russia's Commission of Genocide in Ukraine] Which organization is the author of this report? "The Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights is a unique international consortium of parliamentarians, scholars, jurists, human rights defenders, NGOs, and students united in the pursuit of justice, inspired by and anchored in Raoul Wallenberg’s humanitarian legacy – how one person with the compassion to care and the courage to act can confront evil, prevail, and transform history."
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      "Principal Author Professor Kristina Hook is Assistant Professor of Conflict Management at Kennesaw State University’s School of Conflict Management, Peacebuilding, and Development <...> She previously served as a U.S. Department of State policy adviser for mass atrocity prevention, as a nonresident research fellow at the Marine Corps University, and as a U.S. Presidential Management Fellow. She is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center." I've read the bit about “We Can Do It Again”, if Ms. Hook resorts to direct lies from the start it gives me serious doubts that the rest of the report is any more truthful. But I could tell that from her affiliations alone.
      - fractallyte 2y ago
        You continue to try to justify a genocidal aggressor nation, and this discussion risks degenerating into a flame war, so I'll stop here.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  "and genocide" Perhaps, you should take a more critical look at your sources. Look at this NYT article, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukraine-kharkiv-glide-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/world/europe/russia-ukrai... See the big picture at the top? Clearly it's some kind of mall damaged by senseless and cruel Russian strike that cannot have any other purpose but to terrorize population of Kharkiv into submission. Next look at the first video here: https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 https://t.me/ASupersharij/28133 The place should look familiar, only now you can see destroyed MLRS vehicle (there were two, but the second one got evaporated: https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150 https://t.me/aleksandr_skif/3150), the likes of which were used to fire at the center of the Russian city Belgorod. Here is one of the top Ukrainian propagandists posting in his personal channel a video from Belgorod that shows wounded Russian women screaming and thrashing in agony (the text reads "Happy New Year, bitches"): https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 https://t.me/dmytrogordon_official/39688 And one more video from Russian city of Belgorod: https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/41262 https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/41262
mopsi 3y ago
> The world? Yes, the world. Cherrypicking indicators like "respondents in Francophone Africa" doesn't change the simple fact that the majority of the world disapproves what Russia is doing and the attitude towards Russia took a sharp turn towards negative in 2022: https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-rebuke-invasion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/474596/russia-suffers-global-re... As a general rule, the support for Russia is tied to how shitty a place is. The more successful a country has been at developing a good place to live in, the less they support Russia. Why is that so? If you want to dig into UN voting records, then look at key votes related to Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... The resolution "reiterates its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, and calls for a cessation of hostilities." 141 countries in favor, 7 against: Belarus, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria. But - you didn't answer the question that was asked.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 2y ago
  It costs nothing for a government to vote for a resolution in the UN. The countries where most of the world's population lives have contributed nothing to the Ukrainian war effort and happily continue to buy Russian wheat, fertilizer of fossil fuels. In fact, even France and Germany continue to buy Russian natural gas (only now delivered via LNG ships).
  - mopsi 2y ago
    "The countries where most of the world's population lives" is another funny metric like Francophone Africa. Most of the world's population lives in countries that have very little to contribute in the first place, because poverty and fertility are directly associated. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, but what aid do you expect from their tiny military that has no tanks, no air defense and no artillery to speak of? While countries in the Ramstein contact group supporting the defence of Ukraine represent only 15% of world's population, they produce the majority of global economic output. I'd say that's a far more meaningful metric. So again, why is that the more free, developed and productive a country is, the less they support Russia?

protomolecule 2y ago

"So what is your solution?" Both Russia and the West swallow their pride, drop the arrogance and come up with the new security arrangement in the Europe that addresses the security concerns of Russia and of the countries that feel threatened by Russia.

mopsi 2y ago
That says very little. Given the dynamics of military balance in Europe since 1991 due to the massive reduction of forces on the European side, what would the contents of such arrangement be and what would guarantee that Russia adheres to the arrangement more than they did to the previous one signed in 1975? Unless you propose a major militarization of Europe (which no-one here is interested in, frankly), I don't see how this could mean anything less than a demilitarization of Russia, including almost total destruction of nuclear arsenal, to ensure a balance and equal footing with Europe, to correct the mistake made in 1991 when Russia was left with the huge Soviet arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  "demilitarization of Russia, including almost total destruction of nuclear arsenal" That would certainly address Russia's security concerns.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      "I'd appreciate an actual answer instead of useless diversions, if you are capable of providing one." @dang