Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Easo]

If West would go to war with Hitler earlier USSR would be busy in that direction.

So, clearly by this logic you have nothing against USSR daring to go into agreement with Germany given it was the only possible country that could allow them to avoid war (at least for a few years)?


Price was already dropped though and protests didn't diminish yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, they do have US embassy and NGOs...

No one fucking wanted war aside from Germany and clearly USSR, Shalcker, especially someone like France who had serious demographic issues after the first one. Maybe start caring about actual facts, eh?

Avoid what war? You are gonna tell me USSR knew Germany would go for them? Can you grow a spine and stop avoiding answering why, exactly, USSR attacked Finland in 1939?

Oh so everyone should have just gone home right away because goverment "corrected" the fuel price? Gee, I guess everything is now fixed!
/s

Oh god it's the pathetic bullshit about foreign influence again, Shalcker? Nah, cannot be the rampant corruption, the same "leader" in power for 30 years, nepotism, pretty much nothing from that gas and oil going to the average Joe, the usual oppression characteristic to 'Stans, possible clan infighting, nahhhh, gotta be the WESTTTT, USSAAAAA, SOROS, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Shalcker]

No one fucking wanted war aside from Germany and clearly USSR, Shalcker, especially someone like France who had serious demographic issues after the first one. Maybe start caring about actual facts, eh?

Guess what - USSR didn't want war either. Yet without anti-Hitler alliance to check on Hitler's ambitions seen it as inevitable.

Avoid what war? You are gonna tell me USSR knew Germany would go for them?

Yes, Stalin had seen it as most likely scenario and was buying time.

Can you grow a spine and stop avoiding answering why, exactly, USSR attacked Finland in 1939?

To secure Northern flank. Offer for territory exchange that predated Winter war was exactly about that.

Oh so everyone should have just gone home right away because goverment "corrected" the fuel price? Gee, I guess everything is now fixed!
/s

Oh god it's the pathetic bullshit about foreign influence again, Shalcker? Nah, cannot be the rampant corruption, the same "leader" in power for 30 years, nepotism, pretty much nothing from that gas and oil going to the average Joe, the usual oppression characteristic to 'Stans, possible clan infighting, nahhhh, gotta be the WESTTTT, USSAAAAA, SOROS, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Given that Kazakhstan asked for help through CSTO we' ll see soon enough which outsiders are interested in growing unrest there.

[PC2]

Yo, how did the western democracies come about?

Were there some kinds of "revolutions" that paved the way in many countries? What about the US? Was it just a polite agreement without any revolutionary war or anything?

Humanity's violent history is exactly what I was arguing against. Countries can transition from authoritarian governments to liberal democracies without it being based on violence and physical force. That's what has always been optimal.

Also just to be clear I'm not saying you or @jonnysensible wants violence, I'm just saying it can be implied from revolutionary thinking.

[jonnysensible]

Countries can transition from authoritarian governments to liberal democracies without it being based on violence and physical force. That's what has always been optimal.

I can't think of many examples of that happening (transition via non-violence)

[PC2]

I can't think of many examples of that happening (transition via non-violence)

Are you thinking people can only achieve something if it has already been achieved in the past? That's like thinking we can't go to Mars because we've never been there before. If our cave man ancestors thought like that then civilization would have never gotten started in the first place.

[unfilteredJW]

Are you thinking people can only achieve something if it has already been achieved in the past? That's like thinking we can't go to Mars because we've never been there before. If our cave man ancestors thought like that then civilization would have never gotten started in the first place.

Answer the question asked.

[PC2]

Answer the question asked.

He didn't ask a question. It's a fact of reality that all new forms of human improvement will never have a historical precedent. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to look to the past in order to determine the future.

[Draco-Onis]

He didn't ask a question. It's a fact of reality that all new forms of human improvement will never have a historical precedent. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to look to the past in order to determine the future.

That only works if you ignore all the recessions, pandemics, world wars, real estate bubbles etc. Those who fail to learn from history and all that. Of course you can use the past to avoid future problems because although technology changes humans tend to repeat the same mistakes.

[PC2]

That only works if you ignore all the recessions, pandemics, world wars, real estate bubbles etc.

No, all of those are taken into account.

Those who fail to learn from history and all that. Of course you can use the past to avoid future problems because although technology changes humans tend to repeat the same mistakes.

What you don't seem to understand is that's my point. If you think the future can't be better than the past then you are the one saying it's not important to learn from history and past mistakes(I.e. using violence for political purposes).

[draynay]

Are you thinking people can only achieve something if it has already been achieved in the past? That's like thinking we can't go to Mars because we've never been there before. If our cave man ancestors thought like that then civilization would have never gotten started in the first place.

Its like thinking we can just climb a ladder to Mars, wouldn't that be way easier than rockets? We should just do that. I'm PC2 and I have the best ideas.

[jonnysensible]

(I.e. using violence for political purposes).

why is it a mistake? (some easy examples here)

killing nazis was good, killing ISIS was good. violence is legitimate form of resistance and an essential part of self defense.

I agree that we should move beyond violence (which is why we should dismantle the violent capitalist system).

Anyway, Ukraine....

[PC2]

why is it a mistake? (some easy examples here)

Because societies first need to build up the social knowledge that is required to maintain a free society. You don't want to transition until you're absolutely sure the new system will be stable.

killing nazis was good, killing ISIS was good. violence is legitimate form of resistance and an essential part of self defense.

That only happened because some Germans revolted against their political system using violence.

I agree that we should move beyond violence (which is why we should dismantle the violent capitalist system).

Um, I hate to break it to you but a colour revolution, which you mentioned earlier, would eventually make them more open to capitalism, not less.

[Edge-]

Because societies first need to build up the social knowledge that is required to maintain a free society. You don't want to transition until you're absolutely sure the new system will be stable.

Man, I'm here for this reality where we'd still be British colonies because we'd be so focused on building up knowledge to maintain a free society that we never actually, you know, get around to making the society free. And the French under their monarch. And you know, just about every other country that's had revolutions throughout history.

God save the Queen, chap.

That only happened because some Germans revolted against their political system using violence.

No, that happened because they tried to conquer Europe and commit mass genocide. Because the ideology itself is built on the foundation of racial superiority, necessary genocide, and required violence. They tried diplomacy with the Nazi's, it failed. Miserably.

[Draco-Onis]

What you don't seem to understand is that's my point. If you think the future can't be better than the past then you are the one saying it's not important to learn from history and past mistakes(I.e. using violence for political purposes).

My point was that humanity as a whole does not learn from history because we keep making the same mistakes over and over again. For example leveraging risks (wall street), Fascism (1/6 insurrection and the GOP at the moment), the new cold war, Afghanistan, pandemics. I mean I can go on humanity is not very good at this.

[Shadowferal]

Pc2 can't understand that one can't draw comparisons of a better future if he doesn't know the past.
But then I've never understood the desire to show such stupidity either...this inability to learn from his mistakes.

[Easo]

Guess what - USSR didn't want war either. Yet without anti-Hitler alliance to check on Hitler's ambitions seen it as inevitable.

Yes, Stalin had seen it as most likely scenario and was buying time.

To secure Northern flank. Offer for territory exchange that predated Winter war was exactly about that.

Given that Kazakhstan asked for help through CSTO we' ll see soon enough which outsiders are interested in growing unrest there.

Ah yes, did not want war so it went to war and that "alliance" meant taking over bunch of other countries. Epic.

And yet your beloved ex-bank robber could not foresee Barbarossa? Truly, what a moron he must have been. Oh, and if you were so concerned about Germany - why not attack in 1939? Sure, Red Army was walking failure, but Germany in 1939 was openly weak, could have just "continued" campaign in Poland and crushed it.

Secure your northern flank from what??? From the neutral Finland? And you offered them useless empty forests for, what was is, almost half of the industrialized and actually populated land? It was not an offer anyone would accept, stop playing the idiot.

Nah, you won't find out shit, you will just swallow propaganda about "anglosaxons" because you are incapable of thinking anything new. I mean, who cares that Kazakhstan is a country who built statues for it's then current president and renamed capital city after him. Nah, such country could never have any internal issues, surely! xD
Or maybe you think ANYTHING will change now if you supress the protests? The issues will magically resolve themselves and won't happen again?

[Shalcker]

why is it a mistake? (some easy examples here)

killing nazis was good, killing ISIS was good. violence is legitimate form of resistance and an essential part of self defense.

Was killing Jan 6 protestors good too? Or killing police that defended Capitol?

Those seem like more relevant recent examples of political violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, did not want war so it went to war and that "alliance" meant taking over bunch of other countries. Epic.

Yes, noone wanted war; everyone just seen different ways of preventing it.

West preferred concessions and having Hitler look East; USSR preferred anti-Hitler pact but had to settle for Non-aggression Pact.

And yet your beloved ex-bank robber could not foresee Barbarossa? Truly, what a moron he must have been.

He thought Hitler to be smarter then he actually was.

Oh, and if you were so concerned about Germany - why not attack in 1939? Sure, Red Army was walking failure, but Germany in 1939 was openly weak, could have just "continued" campaign in Poland and crushed it.

Because they could easily see West siding with Hitler without formal alliance.

They already did with Czechoslovakia, after all.

And, remember, part where France and Britain were obligated to declare war when Poland would be attacked was secret - even Hitler was surprised.

[jonnysensible]

Was killing Jan 6 protestors good too? Or killing police that defended Capitol?

Those seem like more relevant recent examples of political violence.

killing people trying to other throw democracy and install i dictator = good
killing people trying to stop democracy being other thrown = bad

really difficult stuff here.

[Easo]

Yes, noone wanted war; everyone just seen different ways of preventing it.

West preferred concessions and having Hitler look East; USSR preferred anti-Hitler pact but had to settle for Non-aggression Pact.

He thought Hitler to be smarter then he actually was.

Because they could easily see West siding with Hitler without formal alliance.

They already did with Czechoslovakia, after all.

And, remember, part where France and Britain were obligated to declare war when Poland would be attacked was secret - even Hitler was surprised.

Ah yes, the different way of preventing war by going to war. You are funny.

Sure, you know what Stalin thought.

Siding with Hitler while being at war with him? Do you ever listen to yourself?
And once more no one wanted to fight, Czech example is yet another proof of that. It is only in your wildest fantasies that West wanted war with USSR.

[Kreuger]

Seems like its a shitty situation in Kazaksthan. Thousand under arrest and several killed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/PierreDBo...62161209143296

https://apnews.com/article/business-...d5188964036348

"12 police died during extraordinarily violent demonstrations in Kazakhstan that saw government buildings stormed and set ablaze, authorities said Thursday. One police officer was found beheaded in escalating unrest that poses a growing challenge to authoritarian rule in the Central Asian nation."