this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
129 points (75.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43884 readers
839 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's more fruitful to look at who benefits from the Ukrainian war.
Life for the average Ukrainian will not be radically different under Russian rule. Most of them will get up, go to work the same job they always have and funnel as much money as possible to those who already have it.
It just so happens that under Russian rule, Russian rulers will be making profit instead of Ukrainian rulers. The people actually fighting the wars never benefit and the ones who benefit never fight.
Its irrelevant whether or not life would be different under Russian rule. Russia choose to invade a sovereign nation. The fact that ukrainians are still fighting to this day shows they want to be independent.
This is a post about conscription, where people who do not want to fight are forced to
I think we're missing a couple of nuances here, no? Although it's a stretch to call them nuance. The way Ukrainian rulers have been making money has been through privatization. And because there's so much privatization we need to look at who owns Ukraine's economy. It's only escalated since Russia invaded, with national assets being sold off to foreign private sectors so cheaply that one has to wonder why they did it when the gains are a drop in the bucket compared to the direct aid they've been getting from Western public sectors.
If Ukraine emerges from this conflict with its own sovereignty, it'll be sovereignty over a flag, a presidential palace and a state framework that protects foreign companies' investments from hungry Ukrainians.
The country is dead. They sold their infrastructure to blackrock and other investment firms. They are now taking out loans to buy weapons which won't do shit against Russia. The country is gutted by capital. Zelensky himself has at least two mansions in other countries including one in Miami. He will either get killed Diem-style (backstabbed by the US/CIA) or flee. It's also possible Azov nazis kill him.
That's only because Russia has already privatized and sold off all of its national assets to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.
The reason the US has a special hate-on for Putin is precisely because he kicked the Western shock therapists out of the country. He stanched the tide of privatization.
that doesn't make sense in the context of the post you replied to
It's pretty obvious that the only country that benefits from the war is the US. Don't take my word for it though, RAND wrote a whole study explaining how in detail https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
It's also absolutely phenomenal that people think Russia needs Ukraine to make profit when it's already the largest country in the world with plenty of undeveloped resources. If you think countries benefit from having to fight a war, then you might wan to learn a bit of history.
I actually showed that article about a year ago to a co-worker of mine. LMAO
Then why would Russia attack Ukraine? Especially since they had already agreed to let go of their nukes and not join NATO. Just let them be then.
If you bother reading the paper I linked, it explains it in great detail. But if you don't believe RAND, then here's the head of NATO explaining it in black and white
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
The sheer intellectual dishonesty of pretending that this was about anything other than NATO expanding to Russia's border even when top NATO officials openly admit this to be the case is truly astonishing.
You seem to misunderstand your own sources. What you cited only proves how utterly insane Russia's conditions were / are. Of course NATO won't let Pootin blackmail them into giving up their stations etc.
Russia and brainwashed tankies like yourself always seem to reject the notion that former Soviet nations are actually sovereign and might have an interest in increasing their defensive strength in light of, wait for it, HISTORY.
Nah I understand my own sources just fine. Meanwhile, anybody with a functioning brain can understand that countries overrun but US propaganda and reliant on US military protection are in no way sovereign. Figures that radlib like you wouldn't even understand what sovereignty means.
Haha sorry I'll save your link to read later