Saledovil @ Saledovil @sh.itjust.works

Posts

11

Comments

803

Joined

2 yr. ago

A non agression pact is not teaming up. Here's an example of what teaming up looks like:

And god damn, the USSR completely fucked up in Finland. Like, why the hell invade Finland in the first place?

Edit: Upon rereading the comment, I found that I had mixed up Sweden and Finland. In my defense, they're right next to each other.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact included a secret protocol to establish spheres of influence across Europe. If we exclude pacts with only Axis signatories, then what's left are mostly non-aggression pact. Actual non-aggression pacts, not an let's wage an unprovoked war of conquest on Poland pact.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Davidlowrendezvous.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?

I wonder if something happened to make them change their mind on neutrality

You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda.

Because there's nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.

The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?" It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.

And while 71.5% of Ukrainians voted in favor of the New Union Treaty, 81.7% voted for an independent Ukraine.

The current regime in Ukraine is the result of a coup staged by the US

No, it's not.

There’s nothing questionable about whether it’s a genocide or not

Let's examine Russian war crimes, shall we:

• Abducting 121,000 thousand children
• Arbitrary detention and forced disappearance
• Attacks on Civilians
• Attacks on Hospitals and Medical facilities
• Destruction of energy infrastructure
• Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
• Torture of Civilians
• Use of Human shields
• Sexual Violence
• Looting
• Forced Conscription
• Mistreatment of POWs

Yeah, so I'm basically just going through the sections of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022%E2%80%93present)

So, your standard is "Imperialism is fine, as long as you're not committing genocide"? Also, Russia not committing genocide is highly questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)

So, why are you indifferent to Russia committing genocide, but not to Israel?

One interesting thing about smiling is that a genuine smile engages muscles in the face that can't be consciously moved. Hence a fake smile always feels off somewhat, since those muscles aren't being moved.

I suppose you don't care about Gaza either, do you?

Tankies are people who identify as communist or socialist, but want a state where the ruler cannot be switched out through elections, or a comparable peaceful process. Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term "tankie" was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution.

Authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. Under communism, the means of production are publicly owned. Ownership over a thing means that either a) you control the thing, and owe no accountability to anybody. Or b) the person controlling the thing is accountable to you. If the person who claims to control the means of production as the representative of the people is not accountable to the people, then he is actually the owner of the means of production. For example, Stalin effectively owned the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wasn't communism, it was the end state of capitalism, the complete enslavement of the working class to the owner class.

And for some reason, people who think Stalin was great like Russia, even though modern Russia doesn't even claim to be communist.

It's to weed out tankies.

Do you want 🇷🇺 to win the 🇺🇦 war?

Those faces all look like there's a shooty shooty 🔫 aimed at their head just of camera.

People have the right to leave the country they are in, or return to the country they're a citizen of. No other country has to let you in.

And the AFD in Germany.

Depends on how resourceful you are. You don't automatically die once you run out of money. Also, no amount of money grants immortality.

This highlights how we already know how to manage global warming, namely by becoming sustainable. We don't need to build AGI to figure it out. And if we were to build AGI, the powerful would reject its truths, because they go against their material interests.