Russia v Ukraine who do reckon will win?

[Revoltingest]

Russia has been a kleptocratic oligarchy for many years..

It doesn't meet the definition "kleptocracy" because
there is no sharing of power. Putin doesn't share,
so there's merely the "klepto" aspect.
It's important to apply labels correctly, so that no
misunderstanding of Russia's government is created.

...while China is essentially a capitalist state with nominally "communist" policies in terms of having only one ruling party. I'm sure you're aware that it has some of the world's biggest private businesses and many billionaires.

But businesses must toe a strict line regarding
operation & speech. A highly mixed economy.
BTW, Xi has stated he wants a return to more
socialism.

I hope your fierce opposition to the Russian invasion and its allies is based on its brutality, aggression, and violation of another country's sovereignty....

That's what I've been posting ad nauseum.
You've not noticed this?

After all, it was a capitalist cabal that invaded and committed war crimes in "communist" Vietnam a few decades ago.

That was wrong too.
Would you agree that something done wrongfully
is wrong, regardless of the economic system of
the wrongdoer?

 

[Debater Slayer]

But businesses must toe a strict line regarding
operation & speech. A highly mixed economy.
BTW, Xi has stated he wants a return to more
socialism.

I doubt he will follow through in any way that actually aligns with socialist principles, because they would undermine his own tendency to throw people's rights and welfare under the bus.

That was wrong too.
Would you agree that something done wrongfully
is wrong, regardless of the economic system of
the wrongdoer?

Yes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I doubt he will follow through in any way that actually aligns with socialist principles, because they would undermine his own tendency to throw people's rights and welfare under the bus.

Socialist principles would be "the people owning the
means of production". ("Ownership" is control rising
to a high level.) Rights & welfare are independent
features in a country, as provided by government,
& might or might not exist under either socialism or
capitalism. You may observe that socialist
countries always suffer in rights & welfare compared
to many capitalist countries whose governments
provide those features.

 

[stvdv]

I don't need a crystal ball, just the RW propaganda trough you feed from.

 

[ajay0]

I find it hard to figure out American animosity towards Putin. Imo, all this shows poor understanding of history and facts as well as conditioning by corporate owned media narratives.

After 9/11, when the American military and economic centers were devastated by Islamic terrorists, Putin had extended support to the U.S, and was one of the first world leaders to talk to the American leadership. And this at a time, when many people in the world, including within the U.S, were stating that U.S was getting what it deserved due to its alleged wars and political interference in other countries.

President Vladimir Putin held an emergency meeting of security officials and said he supported a tough response to these "barbaric acts". He sent a telegram to President Bush reading "Dear George, such an inhuman act must not go unpunished." In addition, television and radio stations in Russia went silent to commemorate the dead.

U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001

To help devise a plan of action for Russian foreign policy in the aftermath of September 11th, Putin retreated to his dacha in Sochi on the Black Sea and invited his top foreign and security policy advisors to come down and consult with him. While Putin was in Sochi, Bush called him from his retreat at Camp David. After their forty-minute conversation, Putin seems to have made a truly strategic decision to offer concrete support for the new American war effort.

The following Monday, September 24th, Putin announced a five-point plan to support the American war against terrorism. He pledged that his Russian government would (1) share intelligence with their American counterparts, (2) open Russian airspace for flights providing humanitarian assistance (3) cooperate with Russia's Central Asian allies to provide similar kinds of airspace access to American flights, (4) participate in international search and rescue efforts, and (5) increase direct assistance -humanitarian as well as military assistance -- to the Northern Alliance and the Rabbani government in Afghanistan.

Some have interpreted these policies of support as nothing new or extraordinary. Of the five policies, the most dramatic change concerns Putin's acquiescence to American troops in Central Asia. Yet, even this policy might be interpreted as Putin merely reacting to hard facts on the ground. Through the Partnership-for-Peace program, especially as developed under Secretary of Defense William Perry, the American and Uzbek militaries have cooperated actively and often. While Russian armed forces protect the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan, Russia has considerably less influence on Uzbek defense policy for several years.

While over 3000 Americans were killed in 9/11, and many more in the subsequent war on terror for the next two decades , Russia had never made any sort of an attack on the U.S that would warrant such hostility.

It is also possible that the extensive intelligence, resources and support that Russia provided to the U.S helped in increasing security for U.S citizens and reducing their casualies as such.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I find it hard to figure out American animosity towards Putin. Imo, all this shows poor understanding of history and facts as well as conditioning by corporate owned media narratives.

After 9/11, when the American military and economic centers were devastated by Islamic terrorists, Putin had extended support to the U.S, and was one of the first world leaders to talk to the American leadership. And this at a time, when many people in the world, including within the U.S, were stating that U.S was getting what it deserved due to its alleged wars and political interference in other countries.

President Vladimir Putin held an emergency meeting of security officials and said he supported a tough response to these "barbaric acts". He sent a telegram to President Bush reading "Dear George, such an inhuman act must not go unpunished." In addition, television and radio stations in Russia went silent to commemorate the dead.

U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001



While over 3000 Americans were killed in 9/11, and many more in the subsequent war on terror for the next two decades , Russia had never made any sort of an attack on the U.S that would warrant such hostility.

It is also possible that the extensive intelligence, resources and support that Russia provided to the U.S helped in increasing security for U.S citizens and reducing their casualies as such.

I suppose it's because of Putin's current imperialist actions.

 

[Father Heathen]

I find it hard to figure out American animosity towards Putin.

What a silly question. Americans love freedom, rights, equality, democracy, and justice; essentially everything Putin and his regime stand against.

Here, let's get you caught up and educated.

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
Media freedom in Russia - Wikipedia
Human rights in Russia - Wikipedia
LGBT rights in Russia - Wikipedia
List of journalists killed in Russia - Wikipedia
2022 Russian businessmen mystery deaths - Wikipedia

Thus we must conclude that Putin is a piece of trash

 

[Father Heathen]

I suppose it's because of Putin's current imperialist actions.

Turns out tyranny, stealing land, and shedding innocent blood aren't well received by the civilized world. Who knew?!

 

[ajay0]

I suppose it's because of Putin's current imperialist actions.

But a friend in need is a friend indeed, considering Putins overwhelming support for the U.S when it was devastated by terrorist acts in 2001.

Also one can also take into account the U.S's past imperialist record, and see that negatives are in both sides.

I would say that the U.S should shed its animosity towards Russia, and instead work on developing independent democratic institutions and freedom of press in Russia, while ensuring its own media is free from corporate ownership, as well as guaranteeing democratic governance free from influence of deep state actors.

 

[Revoltingest]

But a friend in need is a friend indeed, considering Putins overwhelming support for the U.S when it was devastated by terrorist acts in 2001.

What exactly did Russia do to support us?
Does it mean that we should reciprocate by
allowing Putin to conquer Ukraine?

Also one can also take into account the U.S's past imperialist record, and see that negatives are in both sides.

Looking at current events, USA isn't invading
& destroying any countries. But Russia is.
So there's no equivalent immorality at the moment.

I would say that the U.S should shed its animosity towards Russia...

I'd say that Russia should stop attacking Ukraine.
That's the real problem currently.

...ensuring its own media is free from corporate ownership, as well as guaranteeing democratic governance free from influence of deep state actors.

Who would own our media if not the private
sector...government? I see potential problems.

 

[ajay0]

What exactly did Russia do to support us?
Does it mean that we should reciprocate by
allowing Putin to conquer Ukraine?

I had put this article over here which outlines Putin's support to the US after 9/11.

U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001

Looking at current events, USA isn't invading
& destroying any countries.

The US invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence on wmd which was found to be false.

U.S-Nato was recently defeated in Afghanistan after two decades of war which cost a lot of casualties and trillions of taxpayer money ( which made a lot of defense contractors and companies rich.)

But Russia is.
So there's no equivalent immorality at the moment.

That is similar to the bully who fights against an another bully accusing the latter of bullying.

I'd say that Russia should stop attacking Ukraine.
That's the real problem currently.

Russia's security concerns are legitimate. No sovereign country would want a hostile force on its borders.

It is actually a failure of the UN and due to lack of impartial global leadership.

American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Douglas MacGregor and many others have also criticized NATO expansion which has put their country at risk of nuclear annihilation as well.

Who would own our media if not the private
sector...government? I see potential problems.

Ideally, the media should be unbiased and impartial. However if it lacks independence and is owned by major corporate companies with an agenda, it will obviously be biased in its coverage and reporting. Truth ends up as a casualty with propagation of falsehood which brings a lot of problems in its wake.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had put this article over here which outlines Putin's support to the US after 9/11.

U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001

An interesting article.
But the support described struck me as showy but substanceless.

The US invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence on wmd which was found to be false.

You should note that we finally pulled out of Iraq.
The more significant difference is that despite
having gone to war there twice, we didn't annex
any territory. Putin is trying to expand Russia
by violent thievery of another country's land.

U.S-Nato was recently defeated in Afghanistan after two decades of war which cost a lot of casualties and trillions of taxpayer money ( which made a lot of defense contractors and companies rich.)

Same situation as Iraq.
Although, we should note that Russia pulled
the same attempt to "fix" Afghanistan. And
they too left without success.

In order to paint USA & Russia as being
2 peas in a pod, I pose a question...
Whom are we currently invading, especially
to take their land by violent conquest?

That is similar to the bully who fights against an another bully accusing the latter of bullying.

To call both "bullies" in light of Russia's
invasion of Ukraine is to ignore what
Putin is doing to Ukraine.

Ya can't justify Russia's wrongs by
pointing at Ameristan's, & hinting at
equivalence.

Russia's security concerns are legitimate. No sovereign country would want a hostile force on its borders.

Ukraine & Finland feel this way about
Russia, which has invaded both.

It is actually a failure of the UN and due to lack of impartial global leadership.

American intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Douglas MacGregor and many others have also criticized NATO expansion which has put their country at risk of nuclear annihilation as well.

While politicking with Putin could've been handled
better, NATO has never invaded Russia, or shown
signs of any conquest.
It appears that the real threat NATO poses is to
Putin's plans to re-integrate the Soviet empire.

Ideally, the media should be unbiased and impartial.

It isn't possible to eliminate bias of whoever controls
a media platform. The only issue is how to structure
media ownership. If the private sector owns the
various media, & there is competition, this has proven
to be the most open & diverse. Contrast that with
giving government control, eg, Russia, Cuba, N Korea,
China, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

However if it lacks independence and is owned by major corporate companies with an agenda, it will obviously be biased in its coverage and reporting. Truth ends up as a casualty with propagation of falsehood which brings a lot of problems in its wake.

How does the reality of Russian invasion of Ukraine
differ from what's presented in western media?