Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Coughdrop addict]

they used to be one country until 30 years ago.

No, they used to be Russia's brutally exploited slave states. That's why the former Warsaw Pact countries, with bitter memories of Russian oppression, fled to the West and NATO.

[swabian]

@swabian
Everyone who wants to make an exception will come up with reasons. That doesn't mean those reasons are immune to bias and as such are absolute, but they will think so. So I will stick again to my view on this. No exceptions. Shades of gray. I have already said there are darker and lighter shades of gray.

Fine, it's near black then.

That depends on perspective but it is easier to agree on and leaves room for discussion. But turning people into "something else", for politics, no. It's not a viable approach, just an attempt to silence discourse.

I didn't attempt to do that, actually. But you don't have to share my view in order to condemn it as a "too dark shade of grey" or something. You don't deny the warcrimes? The abductions of children, the forced Russification, the turture of PoWs? All the plans they have in store like forced Russification? Well then where is the little splash of white in that paint pot of pitch black that is worthy of note? And my negigence of that little technicality of a nuance makes you feel like I attempted to turn you into som,ething else? Hmm

I've been in nasty "debates" with zealots who obviously have that self righteous demand/intent. This was nothing of the sort.

[Alastor]

Fine, it's near black then.

A better approach than just saying black indeed.

I didn't attempt to do that, actually. But you don't have to share my view in order to condemn it as a "too dark shade of grey" or something. You don't deny the warcrimes? The abductions of children, the forced Russification, the turture of PoWs? All the plans they have in store like forced Russification? Well then where is the little splash of white in that paint pot of pitch black that is worthy of note? And my negigence of that little technicality of a nuance makes you feel like I attempted to turn you into som,ething else? Hmm

I've been in nasty "debates" with zealots who obviously have that self righteous demand/intent. This was nothing of the sort.

Not me, the actors involved. And I didn't say you tried to silence dissent/discourse, certainly not consciously, I said that's what happens naturally when we follow this approach.

[Mithradates]

I watched the whole video. That part was "Ukraine claims". One of the suspects can't exonerate themselves by simply saying "the other guy did it".

Nope, that part is the satellite imagery as evidence that only Russia had access.

Ok, I do wonder if they are this incompetent, how come they occupy a good chunk of Ukraine still, but ok, if you believe this, as I already said, I understand why you buy this version of events.

At the beginning of the invasion, these territories were conquered by a different, more professional army than the one that Russia is left with today.
Since the Kharkiv counteroffensive, I find it hard to believe that Russia can hold onto any Ukrainian land.

Yes optics are important. So spin is necessary. The Ukrainians have been quite successful in their PR so far. So they are good at spin. The video you shared, seemed like it contained spin. It is arguable that the spin is the dam getting blown had little effect on Ukraine's war effort and instead damaged Russia's defenses more. But whatever the case, spin it is.

It does hinder Ukraine's war effort, it just hinders Russia's efforts even more.

[Alastor]

It does hinder Ukraine's war effort, it just hinders Russia's efforts even more.

If nobody benefits and everyone is hindered from this, then we also have to discuss the possibility this was not intentional but an accident. The dam has been shelled numerous times from what I hear and certainly wouldn't be well maintained considering there is a war raging around it.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Let me remind you that Ukraine and Russia score similarly bad in corruption indexes. Which does make sense, they used to be one country until 30 years ago. Yet somehow in the last year or so Ukraine transformed into a paragon of virtue and "Muscovy" into "corruption personified". I hope you can see how this doesn't follow.

Ukraine was lower on the scale, and especially recently has been making big moves to combat corruption. Muscovy has been throwing people out of windows.

I'm intrigued by you not elaborating about your favourite aspects of the holocaust. Are you of the opinion that Hitler did nothing wrong?

[Alastor]

Ukraine was lower on the scale, and especially recently has been making big moves to combat corruption. Muscovy has been throwing people out of windows.

I'm intrigued by you not elaborating about your favourite aspects of the holocaust. Are you of the opinion that Hitler did nothing wrong?

Not by much. Yet the gap you imply is night and day. Again, it doesn't follow.

Why should I elaborate? Are we discussing the holocaust here? No. Is it really that intriguing I have currently no interest to engage with an off-topic issue? I don't know everything about everything and my opinion on all topics you can think of is not the point. Leaving the door open for discussion and re-examination, generally speaking, is.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Not by much. Yet the gap you imply is night and day. Again, it doesn't follow.

It's almost as if that wasn't the only factor I mentioned.

Why should I elaborate? Are we discussing the holocaust here? No. Is it really that intriguing I have currently no interest to engage with an off-topic issue? I don't know everything about everything and my opinion on all topics you can think of is not the point. Leaving the door open for discussion and re-examination, generally speaking, is.

You said that nothing is black and white, zero exceptions. I'm trying to understand if you truly do not make exceptions. Because frankly, if you think the holocaust had positives, it would explain your support for Muscovy.

[Alastor]

It's almost as if that wasn't the only factor I mentioned.

It was the only factor. The rest of the factors you mentioned (the law not being respected, leaders surrounded by yes-men etc) are byproducts of corruption.

You said that nothing is black and white, zero exceptions. I'm trying to understand if you truly do not make exceptions. Because frankly, if you think the holocaust had positives, it would explain your support for Muscovy.

I can't currently think of any positives. But if someone is willing to re-examine it and comes up with good arguments and new evidence, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. History is often re-examined and if new data is presented that is compelling enough our understanding changes. Turning any topic into a totem that can never be questioned is not how this works. That is the point.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It was the only factor. The rest of the factors you mentioned (the law not being respected, leaders surrounded by yes-men etc) are byproducts of corruption.

In that case it is all the more clear that there's a massive difference in the level of corruption between the two.

I can't currently think of any positives. But if someone is willing to re-examine it and comes up with good arguments and new evidence, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. History is often re-examined and if new data is presented that is compelling enough our understanding changes. Turning any topic into a totem that can never be questioned is not how this works. That is the point.

Ah, so you're open to the possibility that the holocaust was a good thing. That explains your support for Muscovy.

That makes things clear, and now I know where you stand. Thanks.

[Alastor]

In that case it is all the more clear that there's a massive difference in the level of corruption between the two.

And yet that's not what corruption metrics indicated. So this assumption of yours is... not particularly corroborated.

Ah, so you're open to the possibility that the holocaust was a good thing. That explains your support for Muscovy.

That makes things clear, and now I know where you stand. Thanks.

I am open to listening to new evidence and good arguments yes.

[Kyriakos]

If we cannot even agree that there is a gaping chasm between claims and established reality, let alone arguments (Ukraine left their soldiers on the islands and since Ukraine cares about its soldiers it wouldn't put them in harms way by hitting the dam? That's the weakest inference ever) and established reality, then why is there even a discussion, just yell "Russia bad" and be done with it, as you clearly wish to do without any need for more talk.
Like was said before, this position is summed up by expecting to even blame Russia for nuking Moscow. After destroying their pipeline, then the dam they control and provides for their area up to Crimea, they went on to nuke their own capital, because they are russians and not really able to think anything through.

[Abdülmecid I]

Hey guys, how about we chill out a bit and focus on the topic of the thread, which, last time I checked, concerned the war in Ukraine and not the moral integrity of our fellow members? Like a dozen of previous moderation warnings have already suggested.

[Vanoi]

I'm waiting for a real concrete answer on why it's in anyway advantageous for Ukraine to blue up that dam. Having your own towns, cities, and probably positions of your own army flooded out isn't a great idea. Making it exponentially harder for your forces to cross the Dnipro River when Ukraine has been trying to take that side of the river doesn't make much sense either.

I guess you could use blowing up the dam as a distraction (still no idea why this would draw Russian troops away from other positions) but you could probably create a distraction without blowing up the dam at all.

[Laser101]

I'm waiting for a real concrete answer on why it's in anyway advantageous for Ukraine to blue up that dam. Having your own towns, cities, and probably positions of your own army flooded out isn't a great idea. Making it exponentially harder for your forces to cross the Dnipro River when Ukraine has been trying to take that side of the river doesn't make much sense either.

I guess you could use blowing up the dam as a distraction (still no idea why this would draw Russian troops away from other positions) but you could probably create a distraction without blowing up the dam at all.

Apparently the left bank is lower than the right, so the flooding is worse on the Russians' side, which would cause more damage... if there were a significant number of troops dug in there, which as far as I know there were not.

Otherwise, there isn't any reason for the Ukrainians to blow the dam. So either the Russians blew it intentionally or over a year of negligence caused a structural failure. I would have assumed that it would have been more efficient for the Russians to blow the dam after the Ukrainians started crossing though.

[Alastor]

I would have assumed that it would have been more efficient for the Russians to blow the dam after the Ukrainians started crossing though.

Indeed that would have made a lot more sense, tactically speaking. That is if Ukraine was indeed in the process of invading the Kherson oblast. I'll say again that last I heard the bulk of their forces is located in Zaporizhzhia and also the Donetsk region where there have been a number of offensives in recent days.

Now, according to that Ukrainian source no less, the dam's collapse has compromised Russia's position in the Kherson moreso than Ukraine's.

[Vanoi]

Apparently the left bank is lower than the right, so the flooding is worse on the Russians' side, which would cause more damage... if there were a significant number of troops dug in there, which as far as I know there were not.

Otherwise, there isn't any reason for the Ukrainians to blow the dam. So either the Russians blew it intentionally or over a year of negligence caused a structural failure. I would have assumed that it would have been more efficient for the Russians to blow the dam after the Ukrainians started crossing though.

They could have panicked. Things don't always go to plan. If they're goal is to prevent Ukraine to cross, it worked. I don't see the Ukrainians being able to cross despite Russian positions being compromised. Bridge layers, pontoon bridges, nor boats won't be enough. Maybe after the flood subsides they could cross. For now, I don't see a major offensive by the Ukrainians at least in the Kherson region.

[Mithradates]

If nobody benefits and everyone is hindered from this, then we also have to discuss the possibility this was not intentional but an accident. The dam has been shelled numerous times from what I hear and certainly wouldn't be well maintained considering there is a war raging around it.

NYT: Experts point to deliberate explosion behind Kakhovka dam disaster

"an internal explosion was the likeliest explanation for the destruction of the dam, a massive structure of steel-reinforced concrete that was completed in 1956."

The breach would have required "hundreds of pounds of explosives" to cause the kind of destruction that occurred and "an external detonation by bomb or missile would exert only a fraction of its force against the dam," the experts added.

Doesnt matter who had what motive, only Russia had the means to do it, it was them.

[Laser101]

They could have panicked. Things don't always go to plan. If they're goal is to prevent Ukraine to cross, it worked. I don't see the Ukrainians being able to cross despite Russian positions being compromised. Bridge layers, pontoon bridges, nor boats won't be enough. Maybe after the flood subsides they could cross. For now, I don't see a major offensive by the Ukrainians at least in the Kherson region.

Well, it's not as if the Russians have been particularly tactically or strategically proficient thus far. It does prevent the Ukrainians from crossing there, but it's a one-time action and the effect is temporary.

[conon394]

I assuming panic on the Russian's part. Given the cost involved it would have a better move if Ukraine was actually in the process trying a major move to cross the river - which seem to have intent of doing now (below the dam)