Sorry man, but we both know there is a distance between "kidnapping people off the street" and illegal procedure in the procurement of soldiers. The martial law, with grounds in the Ukrainian constitution, allows pretty much for conscripting any male within age 18 to 60 something. That the process is not done in due order is concerning, but also to some degree understandable given the circumstances. Do I think they should even be allowed to conscript just about anyone, of course not, but that doesn't make talking about what is actually going on fair game and what you are really saying true. As an addendum I want to say that something being founded in law or not doesn't make it morally right or wrong. Hence the problem is not the distribution of forms nor the method of extracting unwillful populace for war (which is what the article mentions and uses as grounds for it claims of kidnapping), but the almost unbounded conscription itself. This is also why war is terrible, allowing for situations like this, and none should be happy for using Ukrainians or Russians for fighting the West nor anybody else.

The problem is rhetoric matters, and kidnapping implies abduction for the purpose of gaining claims, money or exercising terror. Lemmygrad is too stuffed with people using rhetoric that in turn allows them to react with hateful comments. That is why I want to split hairs. We all know what kidnapping means and what context it is usually used for, but you guys really want to use the term even though a better fit is just the plain truth that they are doing illegal and forceful recruiting. The reason you want to do this is to call Ukraine and the West special in this regard, which is not truthful, showing why rhetoric matters.

Sure, but you can't ignore the other half of the definition. It is the same with wrongful incarceration: checks some of the boxes but is not really kidnapping. Still the main point is also ignored regarding the uniqueness of the situation: It is not a special case by any means.

Literally kidnapping means

to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, especially for use as a hostage or to extract ransom

making the usage of it in terms of illegal mobilization seem a bit disingenuous. Not to say that is not problematic, but my main point was that illegal detention of people for use as soldiers in war is hardly unique to western countries nor Ukraine in this conflict. You, and the article, can easily make this point without misrepresenting the facts.

That is an okay assessment. I would generally dismiss anyone calling to kill anyone for whatever reason, but as I wrote in another comment this person did not seem to me to call for killing anyone as much as using it as part of a vernacular of who needs to be dealt with to fix society, which is frequently employed by leftist in various forms (usually with respect to the bourgeoisie). I think people from Lemmygrad should not be surprised that others are disgusted when they voice support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on other instances. That it isn't more of a controversial subject here is to me a little surprising, speaking from both an ideological and pragmatic point of view. Not that this excuses the "need to be killed" comment, but I do think the context is important and that OP took the exact excerpt needed to incite rage and that this was done purposefully.

but I won’t because it’s gross.

Thanks, I agree and Monsieur should go touch some grass.

Thanks for mentioning this. Though I think it is well known that Arabic and Indian societies were ahead of Europe with regards to mathematics for a long time, I have never thought about the lack of famous mathematicians outside of Europe. That being said, any serious mathematician would say that being a great mathematician is just as much as being at the right place at the right time as a being a genius. It is sad that these names are, if not lost to history, at least not well known, but praising any name of a discipline that builds on previous works in the way mathematics does is a little wrong in the first place. Even the dickhead Newton admitted as much with the "shoulders of giants" comment with regards to himself.

You are not wrong. However, it is also possible to through such questions pose valid problems such as whether the organization is going in the right direction and is it actually making progress. My main issue is with the comment I responded to reducing the dissenting voice to a stupid fallacy along with the sentiment of "I am smart and they are not^slamdunk ".

Why do you read on The American Conservative? Call me judgemental, but I would guess they are not so much anti war as america first, the latter which is just mask on fascism.

Conscription and full mobilization in wartime is not really a western thing though and not really the same as kidnapping. This coming from the point of someone hating the idea of even having a military, narrowly evading conscription myself a few years ago. If you do have some other sources for your claim I would be happy to take a look at them.

I looked through a lot of their comments and saw an abundance of "killing" statements, mostly against CEOs of oil companies and such. As a figure of speech, I do think it is fine. I for one will not pretend I have not said anything similar about the capitalist class. To me it seems you are reacting to who they said it about, and then I think we need to try to understand rather than mischaracterize: If not just swallowing the rage bait of OP (sorry OP, but I think it is) and actually investigating the convo, it should be clear that they are conflating their belief that OP is acting in support of a fascist regime with OP being actual fascist and subsequently saying that fascists got to be removed. Irony is that if MonsieurHedge had bothered reading OP's comments better and not get a rage boner, they would too see that OP is not a fascist pretending to be commie as they claim in another comment.

I don't see why you assume that they adhere to horseshoe theory. How I understood them was an attempt to call out the discrepancy between being commie while supporting a fascist regime, albeit the killing part was not tasteful, but again no worse than "the only good nazi is a dead nazi".

Their evil oligarchs, our billionaires (they are all bourgeois). But really, Putin is less characterized by owning the means of production than by treading water among a host of competing bourgeois interests.

Started by Putin or his group of bourgeois thugs is not important. It is done in their interest at the expense of the proletariat.

get that you want to say that NATO is a source of evil on the global stage,

Is it not?

Yes it is.

Who cares what he says (though I don’t even know what you’re referring to)? Unless you’re living in Russia his rhetoric doesn’t really affect you and, as a liberal politician, it’s not going to match the actions or motivations of the ruling class.

I care about his rhetoric because many of the things he has said he would do, he has also done, some of which has been a tragedy for those bordering Russia. My post called supporting the war unsolidaric, and I still think it is. I think we should have solidarity for all people of the world, inside Russia, bordering Russia and everywhere else. The problem is people are dying unnecessarily for his groups capital gains and we should not be in support of that.

Liberal Great Man theory

No, I think this is reductionist rhetoric from you. Putin is the head of government and no one ever rules alone, that goes without saying. Being head of government makes him an immediate symbol of the government he represents, that is kind of the point of being the head of anything. As such it is disingenuous to say that I talk about "great man" theory when I am indeed talking about the specific actions committed by a regime with him at the forefront. That being said, there is no way one can look at the politics of Russia and say that Putin is a weak leader. He holds much power and has much responsibility for what is going on.

Why did it need to be said?

I was not wrong when I considered this might be a controversial opinion here and I simply do not think it should be.

A protracted, armed conflict is neither started, nor enabled, nor stopped because of shitposters anywhere. 99% of people on this board and a least 95% of people of the internet are totally divorced from this war and at the most are cheerleaders on the sidelines.

The problem is not the importance of posts on the internet, it is the sentiment they represent. This sentiment can and should be of importance if you are serious about socialism and actually making changes to society. As an example, the leftist parties in my country did have a problem with how to react to the war with many taking similar points that I have seen here. That is consequential to the support of their movements and also if they are to actually be successful consequential at large.

If any hill to die on was worthy, I think I will fight till the death that the Ukranian proletariat are not all nazis choosing to be nazis.

Russia is in decline though, economically and demographically speaking. Their economy is for the most part based on export of resources, largely gas and oil. Although they are making great profits due to OPEC and the war inflating the oil prices, they have not many options to transition their economy when oil and gas becomes obsolete, which will happen at some point in the future. As for right now, their population pyramid is not suggesting some major economic boom incoming, rather a multitude of problems which we always observe in capitalist societies with declining populations.

EDIT: Also, I do not align my views blindly after DPRK nor anyone else. Having read, and agreed with, so many socialists stating the need to educate and think for ourselves, I find this point odd. It is just a tautological statement to say that DPRK is always right.

I think a characteristic property of nazism is that it is intolerant and does not allow for opposition, hence the silent opposition has to be careful and smart in how to actually voice or act their opposition given that the nazists are empowered. That does not mean they are supporting them or in any way guilty themselves. They are victims like everyone else. By extension of this logic, everyone living in a capitalist society too impoverished to fight it are capitalists themselves, which is blatantly false.

Nazis should be opposed all day, every day, everywhere. I am saying that there is a human cost to doing so through war, making it not the best (though sometimes necessary) way. Also, I think it is as much nazi apologist to buy into the Ukrainians are nazis propaganda as calling Putin for Putler, as stated above. Generally, nazism is a fringe ideology that has potential to gather a lot of common support if certain conditions are present. In a healthy environment nazis can be ridiculed, outed and opposed with ease due to their intolerant and inconsistent ideology being easy to take apart with words or fists if necessary. I think it is just as racist to call common Ukranians for nazists as it is to talk about "oriental despotism" as I was accused of above, both of which I for the record vehemently oppose.

1. Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class.
2. I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society.
3. Musk and Bezos have both been the richest person in the world, though. The numbers are shaky, but the ballpark as the top of the top economical elite is right. I think that calculation of value of assets is hard, but it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others.
4. Technically, I think you are correct. Taking basis in the definition "a military leader who controls a country or, more often, an area within a country" it might be inaccurate since Putin is a president and not say a general. Though I am admittedly unsure of the official status of the president of the Russian federation with regards to the military in the case of war and in my country, the head of state (which is a ceremonial role), is in fact also the official head of military in case of war. Either way, I think it is clear that Putin has much control in his group of oligarchs and aristocrats, which include people leading the armed forces, making him a defacto leader of the military as well.
5. I do not think these points are mutually exclusive. I do think Putin is a megalomanial leader who also happens to do a lot of the stuff you have said. That still does not excuse what I perceive to be his imperial ambitions and consequently does not garner my support. Ultimately I do not think the regime is a force for good as a whole and I think the issues with it are downplayed and the inadvertent upsides exaggerated. This is maybe the core of my disagreement with some of the other assessments and I am open to me being ignorant on some of the parts of this argument.
6. I am pretty conflicted on idealism vs pragmatism, usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow. However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way.
7. Thank you for not dismissing me and for trying to answer me in a clear and respectful manner. I am equally grateful for your effort as well as your politeness.