Barbariandude

No idea about the rules as written, but I think it's absolutely reasonable to respond to someone engaging. If that's against the rules, those are some strange rules.

I think that dunking for an audience isnt a very fair description for the person you responded to, to be fair to them. It did seem to be engaging with your expressed beliefs directly. Many of these conversations are done so for an audience (what's the point of talking to someone that you might not convince instead of focusing on the 60 people reading it that might be?).

It was a lot of topic switching happening, for sure, but I think you contributed equally if not more to that (intentionally or not, because all inserted claims become fair game). It still is annoying to be chasing a thread that constantly escapes though (the feeling I get when comments seem to continue veering into every related topic under the umbrella) and that's why I'm in support of you just calling for the disengage like you did.

Fair points.

The main reason I felt like that is because they plainly ignored everything I wrote except the parts that they felt they could most easily attack. Ignored my counters to the claims, and just dropped in new claims. If it's not gish-galloping, at least it's gish gallop adjacent. I'd like to think I'm pretty good at at least acknowledging "Hey, I don't have a reasonable response to what you said, I'll think about it".

Yes, I wanted to get out of that because it was clear that the conversation wasn't about what we were talking about anymore, but point-scoring and dunking for the audience. That's why I disengaged.

disengage.

I think another point of contention here is that I have a fundamentally different understanding of what the word "fascist" means compared to you, which I'm glad you've identified and tried to rectify. Maybe we're just talking about different things. I'll read that essay when I have the time, and hopefully the next conversation I have with you I'll be a bit more capable of talking with common terminology.

I agree that Ukraine has engaged in suppression of activists and political parties. At the risk of sounding like I'm doing whataboutism, using suppression of activists and parties to justify Russian aggression when they absolutely suppress their entire population seems strange.

Could you please point out some prominent Ukrainian politicians in positions of power right now that you consider nazist? I do mean that as an honest question, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here.

On the economic side of the spectrum, Ukraine was never a member of the Eurasian Customs Union. There was never any free trade of goods between Ukraine and Russia. There were talks of potentially joining it and it was floated as an alternative to the EU Association Agreement, but it wasn't in place. This means Russia could have put as many tariffs and controls on EU/Ukrainian goods as they wanted, there was never any danger of an uncontrolled flood of goods into Russia.

Also, the EU never forced Ukraine into that deal. You can make the argument about Ukrainian ultranationalists if you want, but they aren't in the EU. At the end of the day, it was Ukrainians, however much you disagree with them, that wanted it.

You've obviously put some thought into my position here and tried to understand it, so I will do my best to return the favor.

Realpolitik is certainly prevalent, and my country is no stranger to this. Words on paper are only as good as people's willingness to do what it says. I completely agree that the majority of the time, "rules-based diplomacy" just means gunboat diplomacy with extra steps. However, that veneer of western justification at least kept the absolute worst impulses of imperialism at bay, even if just a bit. That "just a bit" part is important, because as you quite rightly say, new material conditions will result in new possibilities. What the result of those possibilities are is important. They directly affect my life in substantial ways.

The point about lessons and thinking about this in purely academic terms is difficult when you have friends and family of friends sucked into the conflict. It's very difficult for me to engage with a point as academic as this being so close to the conflict. I know that is an admission of a lack of impartiality and perspective, but it's the honest truth.

As I said in another comment in this thread, I see Russia as more fascistic and right-wing than Ukraine. So in my head, what you're saying with that final sentence is "Ukraine is forced to reckon with its right wing, fascistic side by being stuck between the global hegemon and even worse right wing fascists".

I think calling the entirety of Ukraine and all the people in it "fascist" is hyperbole of the highest order.

If you're going to make the argument that the current Ukrainian government is fascist, then unfortunately the same things but worse is mirrored in Russia, and you have 2 fascist countries fighting.

The diplomatic solution thing is interesting because the main point was not about Donbass at all, but about the Finlandization of Ukraine, determining for them which organizations they can and cannot voluntarily join. Why is it ok for Russia to dictate terms to smaller countries about what they can do, but when the US does it it's the worst thing in the world? What's the difference here?

There's a few different aspects to this:

1st is that having a successful war of naked conquest is a very dangerous precedent to have. If this is normalized, then we're going to see a lot more armed conflict. I've seen people here claim all sorts of justifications for Russia's actions, but Putin himself in the announcement for the "special military operation" was waxing nostalgic about the Russian empire of Catherine the Great. He's been relatively clear in his statements what he's doing and why. He wants to build a new "Ruskiy Mir", where whether you want it or not, Slavic peoples will be absorbed.

2nd is nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up it's nukes for security guarantees from the US and Russia. This sets the precedent that the only way to be truly safe from wars of aggression is to have nukes and threaten your neighbours with them.

Combining these 2 points, to prevent nuclear proliferation and naked imperialism, Russia must not only lose, but be seen to lose internationally and unequivocally.

Finally, there's the self-interest here: if Ukraine was to lose, Moldova goes next. Moldova would barely be a speedbump to Russia. Moldova is extremely close to Romania, we share a culture, language, and Moldovans get automatic Romanian citizenship if they want it. I have close Ukrainian friends too, but it's different when you share a language and culture.

As someone who is very much pro-Ukrainian in this conflict and has talked to many Ukrainians, anyone who believes the hype that Russia is days away from collapsing (again) or that Russia's army is made entirely of uneducated starving peasants who have never held a gun before is taking crazy pills.

War economies can last a very long time, and this kind of attritional artillery based warfare on both sides (they started with almost the same doctrines) with a contested airspace is an absolute meatgrinder.

At least in Europe, the norm isn't free public transport, but very cheap subsidized public transport. In Prague, for example, 1 month of unlimited bus & metro use is currently 50 USD.

I think Prague has an amazing public transport system, it's really intelligently designed.

Hello there! Why's it so surprising? We do exist :P