The attached video explains that a contributing element to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was his perception that, due to the advancement of LGBT rights, the west has grown feebleminded. Since this is purely a matter of speculation that cannot be properly analysed on a material basis, I wanted to ask what is yours opinion on this. Is he making the same mistake that countless leaders have done over the years, including the prime example that was Hitler himself? For sure, there are material reasons why invading Ukraine is something he would want to do, but when it came to the decision alone, it is this fact that supposedly played a major role, i.e. predicting the enemy’s response based on the state of their sexual culture. It also seems to be the reason why so many western rightists seem to be siding with him, since they perceive him as more macho than the imperial core. Are there any texts that attempt to analyze this phenomenon from a materialist viewpoint, and also, how similar is this to actual fascism?
I was going off of the supposed news that Putin was dismayed by how slowly the war is going, as well as the reports that the Russian army is lacking in equipment. Personally, I think that a lack of intelligence did play a role too. As for the sanctions, this seems to be implying that they indeed were effective at stalling Russia’s advance. Would you say that this is the case? I know it’s a big lib talking point, that sanctions work, so I am hesitant to draw conclusions.
And yes, it is rather interesting to speculate just how much could Russia be hiding. Then again, for me, such speculations always seemed bordering with hidden tech fantasies and conspiracy theories, so I prefer relying on confirmed info. It could be that the news that Putin is unhappy with the development of the war is itself propaganda, meant to convince us that the Russian war machine is running out of juice, but the opposite would imply that Ukraine is not important enough for Russia to be worth investing much into war resources, so it’s difficult to say. Put simply, is it a blunder, or a strategic loss? I don’t know, and I hope I can learn more about this somewhere.
And yes, I meant that Putin seems like a conservative bigot from the american point of view, so it’s understandable why some might say these things and draw these Hitler comparisons.
Where would these reports have come from. We don’t have journalists out there. And the journalists that do have access are considered biased and unreliable sources, right? So where would this “fact” have come from?
Where would these reports have come from? Journalists don’t have this level of access to information. Take something simpler, like one city. Journalists in that city get calls about a fire in a building, so they report that a fire has been reported. Then, multiple fires get reported. Journalists can report the fact there are a bunch of fires raging. But what journalists can’t do is determine if it’s a rash of arson. They can opine that it might be, but they can’t actually figure it out. They certainly can’t say what kind of equipment the arson was using, who the arson was, whether they were working alone or together. If they could do that, they’d be the police. So how do journalists report on this stuff? They get their information directly from the police.
So how do war journalists get their information. For the most part, they get it directly from US military and political sources. If you think Putin is waging an information campaign, why wouldn’t the US also be doing the same?
You still haven’t confirmed that your conjecture is even accurate, it’s far too early to be talking about contributing factors. Intelligence gaps play a role in all conflicts. The US also has gaps in its intelligence, but you seem to think its winning. What specific intelligence gaps do you think Russia had that led to the result you think might be happening. How would lack of intelligence contribute to the Russian army lacking in equipment?
How would sanctions stall a military advance?
Sanctions literally never achieve the stated goal but they always achieve the same thing: collective punishment of civilians. The entire point of economic sanctions is to make the civilian population so desperate that they will support a coup. That’s it. Why do you think there’s still sanctions on Cuba? Because maybe this year will be the year the sanctions have an impact on the … checking my notes … literacy and health improvements Cuba has achieved over the last 60 years?
Sanctions are effectively neoliberal war crimes.
Wait, if that’s what you got from my word vomit, I apologize. I was not trying to speculate how much Russia could be hiding. I’m trying to figure out what the state of the board is and what each side knows that I don’t know. What Russia and the Us are hiding from each other is part of that, yes, but only part of it. The more interesting speculation is to figure out what Russia knew about US/EU plans in the region, what Russia new about US/NATO combat readiness, and what Russia knew about the sanctions game. For example, in the sanctions game, the world is undergoing a major food crisis right now, but a massive amount (40%?) of crop fertilizer used in the US is produced by Russia. So Russia knew that if the US imposed sanctions it could easily go for tit-for-tat on some things, making the sanctions game very costly for the US. The fact that Russia invaded shows that a) Russia knew the US wouldn’t land troops and b) Russia knew the US couldn’t impose crippling sanctions. Trying to figure out what evidence Russia had is an interesting exercise. Equally interesting, if Russia is indeed failing to meet their objectives, what is causing it, what are their options to counter it, did they see it coming and decide that the cost of countering was higher than the cost of losing, or did they fail to see it coming, and if they failed to see it coming, what was it?
If you want to stay with confirmed info, avoid Western war reporting. If we learned anything from the Iraq wars its that the entire news media system in the US and most of the EU is completely compromised and reports whatever the war departments tell it to report. I’m not saying you should think about hidden tech fantasies, I’m saying future tech is constantly being researched and developed and it factors into strategic analysis, not that you personally should try to figure out what magical future tech is driving particular events in a conflict. As for conspiracy theories, you seem to be using that phrase to basically cover anything clandestine, which, when it comes to war, is pretty much everything. The CIA and the KGB honed the craft of clandestine operations to its heights, and this is a war between a US proxy and Russia led by a KGB agent. There is so much happening that is clandestine that if you don’t assume there’s “conspiracies” happening then you’re ignoring effectively all confirmed info from the last 70 years.
There’s no criminal conspiracy with evil villains though. There’s war, there’s economics, there’s politics, there’s propaganda, and all of these things are part of a single system. When the war department wants the news to report propaganda, there’s no conspiracy, the war department’s propaganda department publishes a press packet and distributes it to the press outlets that have proven themselves loyal. If a press outlet starts to question the official line, the war department stops sending them press packets, so that outlet loses out on timely “information”, which means loss of profits for them. So, the incentive is there, in plain sight, for news outlets to just report whatever the military says is happening. It’s not like CNN is flying spy planes over the battle field to determine where and when Russian troop movements are advancing or retreating. The news outlets rely on sources, and those sources are the same sources that produce propaganda for the war effort.
It is highly likely that news that Putin is unhappy with the development of the war is entirely propaganda. What its meant to convince us of is anyone’s guess. The important thing is that it’s meant to prevent us from revolting against our own government and one of the ways to do that is to appeal to people’s nationalism.
Which is also true. Russia had decades to invade Ukraine if that was a strategic goal. It never was. In fact, the US knew and reported on, and recently Bernie Sanders stood on the floor of Congress and reiterated that the US knew, that Ukraine’s neutrality was of critical importance to Russia’s strategic security, that Ukraine joining NATO was the “brightest of red lines” for Russia. Russia has no interest in occupying Ukraine. Investing too many resources in full invasion and occupation would weaken Russia, not strengthen. And it would weaken it in two ways: 1) it reduce its readiness for any other conflict and 2) it would reveal more of its capabilities and capacities to the US.
Is it a loss at all? If the objective was to prevent Ukraine joining NATO and to signal to every other neutral state in Russia’s buffer zone that they should not even consider joining NATO, then it seems like potentially mission accomplished.
Joe Biden literally wrote the crime bill that imprisoned massive amounts of black Americans. He wrote the crackhouse bill. He was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. He said that we have to support Israel despite their genocide of the Palestinians because “if Israel didn’t exist the US would have to create an Israel in order to secure its interests”. No one in the media is comparing Biden to any “evil war mongerer”. Comparisons to Hitler are propaganda. They serve a purpose.
Good luck on your journey. Media criticism seems like an area that would help you a lot. Reading The Art of War would probably help, too.