Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
There’s a reason Western Europe focuses on the Nazis in the context of the Holocaust: the Nazis never saw the Western Europeans as a stain on the Earth like they did the Jews and the Slavs. Russians don’t need to point to Jews to claim Nazism: they can point directly to the treatment of ethnically Russian Slavs during WW2 and the plans that Nazi Germany had for the eradication of Slavs.
Russia doesn’t need to point at how Ukraine treats Jews because to Russia, the Holocaust is dwarfed in societal impact by the issues that motivated Operation Barbarossa. The Russians lost 19 million Russian civilians in the war, why would they care about the Jews?
Nevermind that minorities in China get so many advantages it’s actually silly how much affirmative action goes on. Provinces dominated by minorities get significantly more funding per capita and even get loss-leading infrastructure projects like the Tibet and Xinjiang railways. Students from minorities get additional bonuses on gaokao (basically SAT, but imagine if schools didn’t look at anything else). Minorities are exempt from family planning policies and get massive interest-free loans for starting businesses. They get proportional representation in government. Hell, there are 55 minority groups in China making up 8% of the population.
In the army? The prevalence of rural populations in the army has been observed AROUND THE WORLD. It’s a function of rural communities being rather poor and underserved by governments in general, as well as the lack of economic opportunities that living on a farm provides. In fact, the entire notion of the underserved countryside is what allowed communism to rise in Russia and China.
Nevermind the fact that it was Russia itself that treated (and keeps treating) its soldiers as cannon fodder
I’d recommend that you read a more insightful commentary on Red Army practices during WW2 rather than following Nazi propaganda from that period. David Glantz’ work is particularly insightful.
Either way, those are 19 million civilians. That isn’t military dead, that’s civilians.
One thing they always forget to mention is the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany in order to partition Poland.
No doubt the Soviets suffered greatly in WW2, and contributed greatly to the allied victory. On the other hand they did not do it alone, and they certainly did not expect to have to fight the Germans at all, at least not at that point.
So? The Great Powers had decided on a policy of appeasement against Nazi Germany. What exactly would you have proposed the USSR do? They signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact prior to the war for a reason.
Without the Eastern Front, Europe was lost. Hitler only launched Operation Barbarossa because he thought the Western Front was all but won. Continental Europe was under German control and the UBoats were locking down most of the Atlantic, meanwhile imports of Russian materials was sustaining the German war economy (similarly, imports of American materials was sustaining Japan’s war in China and the Pacific)… Of course, it turns out that dividing your forces and taking on Russia in the winter aren’t the best ideas, but at the time Germany wanted energy independence and the Caucasus was seen as an easier target than the Middle East (which at the time out produced Romania but wasn’t yet the oil superpower it is today).
That’s all well and good, but that’s never taught at all to Russians and ignored by tankies.
And if you actually read your dumb narrative, your first paragraph is contradicted by your second. You really need to work on your story.
Here’s the truth: the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was an authoritarian expansionist nightmare that was happy to get Poland for free. They only fight the Nazis because they had to. And Stalin was a shit strategist.
25% ish of the Russian population live in huts and shit in holes in outhouses for a lack of plumbing (mostly ethnic minorities), all while the ruling Mafia collects yachts and private jets, and launches wars.
I’m not saying there isn’t wealth inequality elsewhere, but how about a bit of perspective here. Russia cannot actually conscript too many ethnic Russians or use them as cannon fodder, since that is the only ethnicity in Russia that matters politically, since they are the middle class. Instead they send the colonized people, who happen to be those who shit in holes for a lack of plumbing.
Poor people are overrepresented in the army? No way!
It’s a conscript army. They shouldn’t be.
You say that, but conscription always has exceptions, which usually include having an important job or going to university, which would presumably skew the result towards more poor people in the army. There’s also corruption of course.
Improved infrastructure and better access to education is not the win you think it is. Whether infrastructure and education is good or not depends on what you do with it. If you use your infrastructure to connect unruly provinces to your center of power in an effort to better exert control, then the infrastructure becomes a net-negative for the people on the receiving end. As an example, I’m sure nobody sane enough would claim that the US building the railroad was positive for native americans. Likewise, if you use your education to indoctrinate people, then better educational opportunities go hand in hand with increased oppression.
So… You’d rather people be poor and uneducated than wealthy and educated? Huh?
I didn’t say that at all. What I did say is that you shouldn’t take China providing infrastructure and education as a purely philantrophic endeavour.
What exactly do you think you’re saying? That infrastructure and education are bad?
You claim China is engaging in affirmative action to strengthen its minorities. I’m pointing out that the actions China is taking can just as easily be turned against the minorities you claim are helped by China.
The actions such as… Giving them additional points on gaokao? Interest free business loans? Exemption from family planning policy? The horror.