The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:
But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.
But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.
Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.
I'm not claiming I know much about Russia, much to the contrary I wish to learn more. Which is why I'd like it if you recommended some trusted source that replicates and expands your analysis because, as you know, the internet is riddled with disinformation. If the speech you refer to it this one, it doesn't seem to have any issue with an independent Ukraine outside the currently annexed lands. What is wrong in my interpretation there of the war goal then?
I never said anything about annexation of the whole in the legal sense, I said they wanted to install a puppet regime. Yet another Yanukovich, though this time with military backing because as in Belarus, the people provably don't like Kremlin puppets (irrespective of native language). Annexation would come later, in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture, when noone is looking. Or via the Union State, just as in the USSR where the different SSRs were nominally independent.
If you want Russian impressions, try NFKRZ on youtube, currently in Georgian exile. For analysis, Vlad Vexler (CW: trained philosopher), also there, long time in UK exile. For general Ukraine stuff, raw interviews, boots on the ground journalism Dylan Bourns, also youtube.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to implied you suggested that their plan was annexation, but rather that the general war goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt instead of just keeping the current regions, which was the official war goal from the very beginning. None of the words I've found coming directly from the Kremlin seem to support such notion. Apparently Ukraine has already conceded to all but the land demands for an year now. If those demands are all met, is there any reason to believe Russia would escalate the conflict? Remember, this discussion started because of my disagreement with your following statement on the grounds that Russia doesn't seem intent on controlling any more than the currently annexed areas.
That stuff is off the table. Initially Ukraine was willing to say "leave us the hell alone, stop occupying our territory, and we won't join NATO" and such things, but given that Russia failed to leave them alone (and also can't be trusted to use treaties as anything but toilet paper, see e.g. the Budapest memorandum), things like the Bucha massacre, hitting civilian infrastructure front, left and centre, everything, joining NATO is the only realistic way forward to security for Ukraine.
Even if Zelensky wanted to at this stage the people wouldn't let him. The peace negotiations won't be about territory but how many reparations (I'd guess in the form of mining concessions) Russia has to pay before sanctions are getting lifted.
I still 110% stand by that sentence: Russia is on the retreat, its defensive lines are soon going to break, they have major logistical issues (thanks, Storm Shadow) and all that is not even including that after Prigoshin's stunt the Kremlin is currently occupied with running around like headless chicken. That is: No, they're not holding the occupied territories. Don't let the apparent crawl of progress confuse you defensive lines are always hard to crack, the fast stuff comes once they're breached and you can attack other parts of the line from behind.
You know the by now I think classic saying: First everyone thought that Russia had the second strongest army in the world, then we all realised that it has the second strongest army in Ukraine. European countries OTOH did build their capabilities based on the "second in the world" impression, and even if they fall a bit short based on that measure -- Russia isn't the second strongest army in the world.
Random point to give a sense of scale difference: Ukraine is keeping the Russian air force at stalemate (neither side has air dominance) with what 50 ageing MiGs (model "uses civilian GPS"), as well as ground-based systems (of which Russia also has plenty). The EU fields about 1700 jets, a vast number either modern or very upgraded, with capabilities specifically designed to kill ground-based air defence and establish air dominance. Good ole NATO doctrine: Hit so fast and hard and deep in the air that the opposing force is dealing with a ground front"line" consisting of all of their land area.
Considering you didn't really push back on the basis of the claim that Russia has very little interest in anything but the formally annexed areas, I don't see why this matters. If Russia needs only to hold onto what they annexed, it's not on them to match the Ukrainian army, but on the Ukrainian army to match and surpass the Russian defence now. They have more or less been holding on the position for 1 whole year, despite sanctions and economic warfare. And they still mainly only lay claim to the annexed territories and demand Ukraine out of NATO (which I'm pretty sure is already a settled deal) in order for peace talks. So if the ball is in Ukraine's court to push out the Russian forces off of those regions, I don't think it's accurate to say that "Russia can't match Ukraine" on a stalemate with Russia on a favourable position for so long, with only now some sign of Ukraine retaking the territory. I don't think it matters too much what speculation we have on what is "going to" happen for the sake of that argument. Also, for the sake of my curiosity, do you want this war to end as soon as possible?
Ok let me stop you right there. Russia put everything it has into the Ukrainian frontline. If you have any illusions about that consider their military response to an armed rebellion: A couple of planes (all of which were lost), mountains of police forces -- with like three armored vehicles between them. Transports, not tanks or artillery. In technical terms Russia right now has exactly zero defence in depth, and their other borders are pretty much deserted.
The situation you're looking at right now is nowhere close to a stalemate. The reason we only now see Ukrainian gains is because a) weather and b) Ukraine training troops, receiving hardware from the west, etc, for the last months. Why would Ukraine start an offensive in unsuitable weather with disorganised forces with cracked tires and reactive armor replaced by cardboard: They're not Russians.
Summing up: Ukraine is currently rolling, slowly but surely, over the combined might (minus nukes) of the Russian armed forces. And you wanted to tell me Russia would stand a chance even against, say, France, alone.
I want Russia's imperial aggression to cease as soon as possible. And as they don't seem to be willing to leave willingly they will need to be driven out.
I would never suggest such hypothetical as it doesn't even make sense from a geopolitical perspective for either party in my opinion. Neither would ever declare war on each other alone as things stand. My point is that I don't believe you are correct in saying that "Russia can't match Ukraine" given that they have achieved their official war goal a whole year ago. Feel free to correct me with some official Russian statement on how they actually want anything more than those 4 Oblasts and Ukraine out of NATO, things that are already well within their grasps.
That seems to be the definition of a stalemate, yes. If the stalemate is ending now, we will only be able to tell in the future. If neither side is making gains due to logistics, strategy or elements outside of their control, I don't know what to call it other than a stalemate.
Do you dislike Russians as a people or something? That seems like a weird comparison to make on basis of ethnicity alone.
Are the Russian forces supposed to be able to match both Ukrainian and Russian forces now?
But is that more important than ending the war as soon as possible? Can there be no peace so long as Russia occupies the 4 oblasts? In other words, can peace only come if Ukraine wins a decisive victory and not a day before? For the record, I am generally in favour of an immediate cease fire so that negotiations can happen without further spilling of blood.
yogthos said:
(I first thought that was you but it actually wasn't, however, doesn't matter it's still the context)
To which I replied:
Now, if you accept that Europe as a whole has more military might than Ukraine alone, my point stands. I rest my case.
Do you play chess? You can have long exchanges of moves without one player capturing a piece, yet any observer with knowledge of the game will be able to tell you that one is winning, and the other is losing.
An army indeed should be able to match a mercenary company it employs, yes.
Ask the people lying in mass graves in Bucha. Ask the prisoners of war Russians castrated with pocket knives. If Russia is given the territories they will not know peace, they will know genocide and tyranny: No, there cannot be peace as long as Russia is occupying, categorically so precisely because genocide and tyranny aren't peace.
Also besides the point countries cannot be allowed to get away with wars of conquest. As a tankie I'd expect you to hold that imperialism is bad in any and all circumstances, but, it seems, you're blind on the Russian eye. I wonder why, it's not that current-day Russia would be anywhere close to communist, in either name or action, why are you taking their side?
I certainly have no side in this war, I only wish for the bloodshed to end however it needs to. I have not even defended Russia from any moral standpoint, and am specifically only arguing about that specific point you made. If you think saying "Ukraine is not winning right now" is defending Russia, you might be conflating (controversial) assessments of war performance with some kind of endorsement for the winning side. Germany defeated France in WW2, doesn't mean they were the goodest good boys.
Your point does not really stand because 1) I have never mentioned the rest of Europe myself here and am only attempting to understand and correct a possible misrepresentation of the conflict as if Russia is not "matching" Ukraine itself, which would require Russia to be trying and failing to advance in Ukraine rather than defending conquered positions, and 2) Ukraine is receiving a good chunk of material support from NATO and other NATO countries, which should count against the notion that Ukraine is single-handedly blocking some complete Russian advance.
From my very humble understanding, Russia's official stance is only to maintain their annexation, in which case they already achieved all that they sought to through war, and need only defend their new positions. Can you provide me any source that goes in-depth on how this not true?
The mercs they employ is part of their total forces, but counting a revolt of a corp as some victory for Ukraine seems misguided. Were the mutineer communist soldiers in WW1 in Russia a victory for the Kaiser?
Everything below here is beside the point and tangential.
Taking this rather simplistic chess analogy, Russia controls the parts of the board it intends to, and Ukraine has finally started pushing it back. Either way chess is a terrible analogy because there are no peace treaties in that game and it only ends when one side wins definitively or in a complete draw. Since you like Paradox, it's more like if Russia currently occupies the the war goal and is just waiting for the war score to go up while defending counter-offensives. Still simplistic, but I believe it is more appropriate. Real life complexities don't translate well into games though.
Taking your word for these, why exactly is the only way to stop that with direct warfare? Has Russia ever denied the condition of free passage of Ukranians in the 4 Oblasts to the rest of Ukraine in case of a ceasefire? How is soldiers dying in the front materially helping those people? And why does Ukraine not evacuate all of their civilians who want no part in the war if they want to avoid such atrocities?
Ukrainian manpower is, with NATO surplus materiel. Going up against even just the EU, not the whole of NATO, would involve going up against more than twice the current size of the Ukrainian army, and that's without conscription, it's all professional soldiers. Well-equipped ones at that.
In Russia, in the meantime, well, Shoigu has some very nice villas, so do his generals. Not terribly useful in a war, though.
If you compare Russian vs. Ukrainian morale Russia's war exhaustion was at like 50% the moment the three-day offensive failed. In Ukraine people were queuing at recruitment centres, the army didn't have capacity to train that many people at once. Contrast Russia which wanted to conscript 300k people, upon which 700k (conservative estimate) fled the country. Many more would like to but don't have the means. Russia is a big place if you want to vanish in the woods there's pretty much nothing stopping you but your survival skills.
Russia has been force-relocating people to filtration camps. They have abducted children. Give me one good reason to believe they'd grant freedom of movement.
Also, irrelevant: Those areas would still be under Russian rule. That's imperialism and remember imperialism bad and must be opposed.
Because the Russian army would shoot at them. They also shoot at aid workers trying to bring supplies to people affected by the Nova Kakhovka dam breach while themselves not lifting a finger to help people.
But to bring out a more general point: None of this is your decision. Mine, neither, it's just that my position aligns with what Ukrainians themselves want: Their country back, and Russia to fuck off. Had the three-day offensive succeeded Ukrainians would've started a partisan war, they're tenacious bastards.
Also I find this whole "pacifism is when you roll over and let me kick you" line of thinking highly distasteful. No, maybe I want to break my fist on your skull when you fuck with me and my loved ones because отъебись и ёб твою мать.
Becoming rather rude are we?
Yes, but the point is not about "matching" the EU but only Ukraine. I'm not insisting on this line of thought about Europe and Russia fighting a fictional all out war, so I'd advise you to drop it as well. Instead focus on your first claim that "Russia can't match Ukraine" and actually argue against what I have said there, instead of some anachronistic hypothetical. Russia has spent the last 1 year mostly occupying their claimed lands, despite the full mobilisation of Ukraine and their NATO arsenal and training, who is only now finally maybe making some headway. I would say that they have at least "matched" Ukraine there. They don't need to invade the entirety of Ukraine because that was never their stated goal. It is okay to admit you were being hyperbolic there.
The rest, again, is tangential and beside the point of the argument over the "matching Ukraine so far" point. Valuable? Yes. But is not related to my original point. I'd rather you focused on the above rather than the following as this is getting too tangential into the morality of war.
So, it was never a demand from Ukraine at the negotiating table to stop those relocations or to allow inspections? If it was, did Russia never respond? If we are just assuming things rather than providing sources we can't make much progress here.
Not sure what you mean there. How exactly is it more imperialist for Russia to annex regions that have significant Russian and Ukrainian populations, but not for Ukraine to annex them back? Imperialism bad, sure, but if you define imperialism binarily you're not gonna go very far considering how complex the question of ethnicity and self-determination is in border regions. If Ukraine somehow wins and joins NATO, this will also surely have imperialist repercussions as that organisation is the ultimate imperial bloc worldwide. So should Ukraine then avoid NATO because of a binary notion of imperialism?
I don't refer to evacuating civilians in occupied areas, but rather the rest of Ukraine under Ukrainian control. Men aged over 18 have been forbidden from leaving Ukraine. Families have to bend over backwards to reunite in the rest of Europe. If the lives of Ukrainian civilians is important (and I believe it is), the first priority should be relocating all those who don't wish to participate in this war. And use all that NATO tech for that as well. Then we can think about more operations like counter-offensives.
Not as individuals, yes. But you probably have a government that is very keen to support more Ukrainian war efforts but not so keen to support Ukrainian and Russian refugees fleeing the war. And this is an internet forum, so what I'm saying here is not directed only at you, so hopefully some people question this notion that we need more deaths to save some lives. Either way, this was all about pedantically correcting your statement implying that Ukraine has been overwhelmingly winning against a Russian offensive, which is not really the case.
Also I don't recommend ever summing up a whole ethnic group as having a single position or tendency. You'll find that some Ukrainians actually just want their basic necessities met wherever in the world they are. Others are furries. People are diverse.
This is not about pacifism, it is about being pragmatic. Throwing in more soldiers to die has not proven effective at saving innocent Ukrainians. We've had 300 thousand dead now. The land is not people, and if you want to save people instead of land, you'll have to accept some land losses. After a ceasefire, it'll be much easier to negotiate human rights inspections and evacuate all Ukrainians who don't wish to remain in the new Russian domains. But sticking stubbornly to some possible future in which the Russian forces are driven out through sheer willpower and NATO hardware does nothing to help those people right now. If some heads have to roll, sure, but how many heads, both Ukrainian and Russian, have to roll before we recognise that this is not really working?
Are you fucking serious. "Was it ever a Ukrainian demand to stop the genocide of Ukrainian people". Are you listening to yourself. Have you touched grass recently.
People who had it happening to them don't call it "evacuation". Evacuations also don't tend to be by force, or end in internment camps.
You claim to be "oh so neutral" and yet you're regurgitating Kremlin propaganda 1:1. I have no idea who you're trying to convince, here.
That's wounded, not killed. Killed we have about 70k Russians, maybe 20k Ukrainian soldiers. Not counting civilians (which are overwhelmingly Ukrainian, anyway).
Obviously, Russia throwing more soldiers into the grinder to die has not proven effective in advancing its war goals, so why aren't they fucking off to their side of the border? This kind of logic always cuts both ways and you applying it to one side only betrays your bias.
"We" doesn't matter. Ukraine will fight until it's free, Russia until it's exhausted. That's what's going to happen, that's how war works, no matter your preference, war is and will always be unaesthetic: It continues until the parties have an agreement on what can be achieved by both sides, and with Russia being unrealistic (because jingoist and superiority complex and валяй, ебёна мать!^1^) it's dragging out. Russia's mind about its own goals cannot currently be changed by any other means but on the battlefield, that's why that's where negotiations take place.
I subscribe to the same philosophy as Linus Torvalds in these matters. You can rest assured that I'm not writing in anger.
^1^ You probably don't get the reference: Pushkin, The Wagon of Life.
Please no needless rudeness, thancc. Also you forgot to respond to the absolute only thing I actually care about (the "Russia can't match Ukraine" while Russia controls their war goals contradiction), while talking a lot about a bunch tangential stuff I explicitly mentioned is besides the point. Could you properly address that bit rather than focusing on unrelated morality questions?
I have, just this morning in fact. The blades of grass sadly don't bring news about European wars. You might not be aware, but the world outside cares very little about this one war. Please answer the question or ignore it, but there's no need to be this aggressive for a basic curious question. If you care so much about Ukraine, you could provide the info you have rather than attack me for asking. And if you think this answer is so obvious, instead provide me a link.
You seem to misunderstand what I said there. I am not advocating for the Russian forces to "evacuate" Ukrainians from the warzone, but rather for the Ukraine government to evacuate all civilians who can't or don't wish to contribute to the war to their western allies in Europe. That is not happening right now, and could possibly save many lives. Could even use those NATO transports. It's not good for the war cause, yes, but it would save lives.
No idea what that is about. Sadly I don't know Russian and get most of my news from popular European and Unitedstadian outlets, so I find it hard to believe I'm getting it from the Kremlin. If that is just a knee-jerk reaction to the previous misunderstanding, I apologise I guess.
Thank you for the correction. In either case, it's a lot of people dead, specially on the Russian side. I think the point still stands there.
I don't see any Russians here advocating for the continuation of the war, do you? If they were I'd equally push back at their ideas. But the reality here is that they control some regions, and kindly asking a military to forgo all of its conquests will mean that the war was for nothing. Meanwhile, Zelensky's administration in conjunction with NATO seems intent on dragging this war out until either Russia loses all conquests or every able-bodied Ukrainian is dead. Now which sounds more viable as a peace talk demand, for Russia to forgo every conquest they've spent Russian lives, labour and capital on, and also pay a bunch of reparations on top of their sanctions, or for Ukraine to accept its current de facto domain and work within it to safeguard the lives of Ukrainians in all lands without having to send more troops on counter-offensive after counter-offensive? Neither is a pleasant choice, but there are no pleasant choices in war.
And then I guess we circle back to the old point where Russia has already pretty much achieved its goal and is just fighting to keep what land they grabbed at this point. I think it's just a matter of opinion on what is "unrealistic", as I also find it very unrealistic to believe some invading army would just give up on its conquests, specially if they believe their own rhetoric (and I'm pretty sure a bunch of them do) of trying to prevent NATO encroachment and protecting the Russians in the now annexed lands. Could the same case for "unrealistic" not be applied to Ukrainians who demand such capitulation? If "Ukraine will fight until it's free", it's safe to assume that the war will go on until either every able-bodied Ukrainian (who hasn't fled illegally) is dead or victory is achieved. I would certainly not support some government in marshal law that puts in practice such a plan.
Linus Torvalds is famous for his C programming skills, not his communication capabilities. It would be less of a waste of both our times if you spent your words on information rather than petty insults.
Sorry, I don't read European poetry. can I interest you in some Funk?
If you don't want me to address points, maybe don't bring them up?
About 8.2 million, that's like 20%, have fled. Numbers oscillate but many are going back to help the war effort, sometimes even with children.
Believe it or not but a people might want to fight. Not just a leader, not just an army, but a people. Generally speaking you don't want to piss off Slavs. Their national anthem (complete banger, no, not Funk) is about pretty much nothing else but this. First used 1917, then Russia happened, then in use since 1995, and now Russia happens again. If you have a look at different anthems of eastern European states many contain language such as "Our country isn't lost, yet", "We haven't yet perished", each and every time it's referring to Russia.
If you get your information from European media, you're not getting told those kinds of cultural and historical background because they don't need to be said. If you get your news from the US it's likely that it's at least interspersed with Kremlin propaganda. They don't understand why Europe is fighting, either, they just want to bonk some Russkis, don't want to be seen not doing anything while the rest of NATO is up in arms, but also need to be dragged into doing things -- because they don't understand Russia.
This war would already be over had Ukrainians received better support from the start.
First off, no because Ukraine will have won long before then. Secondly, no because if the war was going badly for Ukraine (it isn't) Poles etc. would volunteer en masse. Speaking of Poland the only reason their military isn't in Ukraine right now is because NATO also is a leash.
As the joke goes, two Polish veterans meet in a bar. Asks the one: "Suppose Germany and Russia again invade us at the same time. Who do we shoot at first?" -- "Easy", says the other, "The Germans: Business before pleasure".
Yes. That's why they have to be kicked out by force.
And here I thought you said you wanted to learn more about Russia. That poem describes the Russian soul and its own exasperation with it.
As to the more general point of "Russia is losing": I guess it's useless to argue further, you've made up your mind. Ukraine and its people disagree with you.
Go start watching the progress of war more closely (about any youtuber going over maps, try e.g. this one). Promise me you'll eat your shoes if Ukraine wins in under a year from now and I promise I will neither gloat nor insist you actually do it.
I actually only want you to address one specific point, but you keep bringing up completely irrelevant cultural or moral tangents and neglecting to keep the conversation on the very material subject on which I started this conversation. I am merely addressing those points and specifically how they don't matter to this discussion. If I may say so, it looks like you're intentionally avoiding the subject.
If I need to repeat myself yet again, how come "Russia can't even match Ukraine" if, as you've implied multiple times, Ukraine is dependant on NATO support (a group they're no part of) to push back the current Russian occupation that has remained more or less in place for over an year? And how does this entire 1 year history of war not show that Russia has actually at least matched Ukraine? Possible future prospects or "what could've happened" don't matter when analysing the reality of the past 1 year of the war.
It is completely okay to admit you were being hyperbolic there, but you insist in not even acknowledging those points, much less arguing against them, while trying to lecture me about some intrinsic characteristic of Slavic peoples.
Random moral and ethnic tangents from somebody who can't stop.
And yet, men aged over 18 are barred from leaving. According to the UN, 90% of those who left are women and children. I'm sure you don't actually think every single Ukrainian adult man wants to stay. Many are doing unconventional methods to bypass this ban, which are not accessible to all. Believe it or not, but some people don't want to fight. Keeping them there against their will does not save Ukrainian lives.
So what you're saying is that NATO news outlets that bend over backwards to support Ukraine are actually parroting propaganda from their enemy? Are the only reliable propaganda-less sources the Ukraine military and the youtubers you've mentioned at this point? Also I'm pretty sure not everybody is a Ukraine nerd in Europe, so the European news would still have to explain how Slavic peoples are so different and how that uniqueness impacts the war, which has had severe material impacts to all of Europe. I'm pretty sure not everybody in your neighbourhood is an expert in both the Scots, Portuguese and Libyans.
Would've, could've, should've. This is all speculation that 1) Ukraine is going to win, or 2) Poland would go against NATO to participate in the war. Either way, it still demands more blood for the blood god which is a weird way of saying "yes, I think it's safe to assume that escalation will follow rather than cutting losses in case Ukraine doesn't win". I guess in order to save Ukraine every Eastern European should go die and kill there? Is this about saving Ukrainian lives or Ukrainian soil at this point?
Which goes directly in the face of your portrayal of them as being unrealistic in their demands. If in order to get your peace demand you need to completely shift the tide of the war, maybe your demand is the most tenuous one. "Realistic" demands for peace include only what is practical for both sides to achieve in the current moment, not ones that might be possible in some future that one side hopes for.
I guess I misspoke but I have no interest on Russian literature or poetry, but rather the material realities of the people, whatever their ethnicity and culture. No song is going to inform me about whether or not Russia currently controls Donetsk or Crimea, and insistence on such subjective media rather than the established facts brings nothing of use to the table. And again, summarising one entire diverse country by a single song seems awfully simplistic.
I don't think I need "Ukraine and its people" to agree with me on this seem I'm not talking to them right now and they're not a single hivemind with only one opinion. As you've said, 20% of them have even fled, though you also failed to provide a source. What I'm stating is a simple statement, "Russia has achieved its war goals and therefore has matched Ukraine", and instead of explaining why I'm wrong you keep deferring to songs, youtubers and some bizarrely reductionist notions of ethnicity. If you don't wish to talk about it, don't waste your typing fingers beating around the bush. You seem to be mixing your moral feelings about the war with your material analyses, and that's generally not helpful even if you end up correct in the end by a stroke of luck.
But if you do want to actually explain to me how "Russia can't even match Ukraine" despite the course of the war so far, without resorting to hopes and dreams and speculation or including foreign factors like NATO support, I'm all ears actually.
I'll actually eat my food like any other day. I'll not even shed a tear or smile. Believe it or not, I don't spend much of my time thinking about this war amidst all other world issues. I don't have any stake in it and I don't care which side wins in the end, which is why I don't bother speculating on the future. I'm rather interested in this war ending whatever it takes with the least harm done to all peoples, and if it takes the Russian annexation of lands it currently controls, the human rights situations can be sorted in peacetime. Besides, this war is really annoying for global geopolitics even though nobody even knew where Ukraine was on the map 2 years ago. They're not that relevant out there to anybody but Eurocentrists.
lmao imagine thinking that some generic European anthem is a banger compared to Funk music or literally any genre from outside Europe. Can't wait to listen to the baroque choir on my Spotify. "Deutschland Deutschland über alles, über alles in die Welt" derivatives is definitely something the world loves listening to. Is there even good music coming from Europe since Daft Punk retired?
But since you offered, I offer you back Guantanamera as an olive branch, because I've been listening to it the other day.
Reminder: Russia has matched Ukraine militarily, and Ukraine is just now possibly getting to match it back. This is not a moral statement. Reply to that first, then you can proceed to tell me about your understanding the intricacies of Slavic culture.
No, but this is war. Even if you're not needed on the front lines you're needed repairing infrastructure or baking bread. I don't buy the "I need to protect my wife abroad" thing btw you're moving to Poland or Germany, not Somalia.
No I'm saying that America is infiltrated by Russian assets and they're being quite oblivious to how Russia operates in that regard. Russia has successfully had Americans at each other's throats for a good 20 years now.
Even if we accept the "they only want those territories" idea: Noone has achieved any goals before the war is over. They also have to hold those territories -- and probably also want to get rid of sanctions. War is the continuation of politics by different means (Clausewitz, read him), as long as Ukraine doesn't cede to Russia's claim, or is forced to, Russia's political and thus war goals are not achieved.
The whole thing was in response to "Europe needs the US to be protected against Russia". That's the context. No, Ukraine could not stand against Russia without foreign help, at least not in the way it is now -- we'd see a partisan war.
But given that Ukraine, with all this backing, still has a smaller military capacity than the rest of Europe, no, Europe isn't reliant on the US for its own protection. As said, France alone could do it. NATO could vanish and we'd be fine (if a bit disorganised) as the EU, too, is a mutual defence pact. Article 42 (7) TEU. Turkey would be left in the dust... well, technically, that's why the US has always been keen on undermining EU military integration, but in reality we'd have their back if Russia tried to do shit. Not that they could Turkey is armed to the teeth, the only thing they'd have trouble with is fighting a two-front war, Russia and Greece.
Generally speaking if I hear "The US is defending Europe" it's usually from Trumpists or, I guess this proves the horseshoe theory, Tankies.
Is not our national anthem. Yep the GDR one was better.
But more to the point, as to banger national anthems, try the Tuvan one, complete with throat singing.
As to European music, motherfucker. Probably 90% of the world's metal output is written here and countries which are unable to produce metal (such as France) then rock when it comes to other things, in France's case, Electronica. Case in point, have some minimal Techno. But to circle back to Ukraine, have some Heilung.
There we have it. Thank you for finally stopping the assumption that I'm arguing some grander point than I was. Russia can match Ukraine. We can move on from this now. Only took some 10 replies.
You do know that there are other reasons for people to not want to be in a warzone other than "protecting wife", don't you? Not going into the Somalia/Germany comparison there, but there are people, be they bakers, engineers or even soldiers, that have fled from Ukraine, but are legally barred to do so. What do you think of those men who only wish to leave Ukraine and the war but legally can't? I'd bet there are even some ethnic Russians and other minorities from Ukraine that'd rather not be part of it too. Not to protect some elusive wife, but to protect themselves.
Then we're just arguing semantics. Russia currently controls most of the claimed regions and if God demanded an armistice they'd keep most of it. It is up to the Ukrainian forces to change that if they insist on war. They don't need to wait for some formal declaration of peace so long as they hold the regions. They have de facto achieved their goals. Both Korean countries claims jurisdiction over all Korea, but they don't have much authority in each other lands. It would be plainly ignorant for either to demand the other to unconditionally cede their domain. But it would also be nonsensical to claim then that either is trouncing the other given they can't push each other out of their respective domains. The ball is on Ukraine's court to take the lands back if they so wish, which means they're on the losing side right now. You're missing the forest for the trees on that one.
I'm confused. Where are the Tankies in this? Are we Trump? The USA? Europe? The Leopards? If you people are at war with each other and the USA helps out, what do we have to do with it? Are we asking the USA to defend or attack Europe? Very confusing.
Or do you refer to the USA protecting European capitalist interests (which don't include the interests of the working class Europeans) by destabilising foreign powers that pose a threat to European imperialism? Well, if that is the case, I'm not sure how the wars on Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan, or the dozen interventions in America Proper helped the working class Europeans. If y'all really don't like the Unitedstadian support, please do ask for a referendum to leave or disband NATO. You'll find plenty of leftist support worldwide.
Ah yes, Unitedstadians haven't been famously killing and oppressing their own before Putin got into power. The FBI is a KGB branch and all.
sounds neat, reminds me of this monster hunter track
I'm sorry, neither of those are really that popular out there. K-pop, Funk and hip-hop variants are really blooming though. Also why is the Ukrainian one German and singing in English? Either way, have yet another cultural wonder from far away.
...says the one with a lemmygrad account.
I'd actually be in favour of that but at the same time would worry about what the US will be doing without our moderating input.
When it comes to intervention abroad the US and EU have vastly different outlooks (even though France kicked off Libya).
Random recent example, take Mali: Their government said "Help we have ISIS here and can't deal with it", France said "No problem my old colonial subject we'll solve it", Mali said "We know the French, they are arrogant and are only going to stomp ISIS, then leave us as defenceless as we were before" upon which Germany said "We also know the French, yes they're arrogant we'll train you". Thus France went to fight, and Germany went to train. Then, and this is a bit speculation, Russia bribed some top Mali brass in any case the net effect was a military coup in Mali, the Junta then inviting Wagner over and their military started to massacre random people in joint operations with Mali. France and Germany promptly left and/or suspended operations, Wagner trying to blame the human rights abuses on France (playing into general anti-French propaganda Russia has been peddling in the region for quite a while). And no they didn't do anything to combat ISIS they only made things worse.
How many points in that -- coming when invited, doing a clean job, leaving when asked, would you expect the US to do? The European sentiment is that the fucked-up internal state of Mali politics cannot be solved by imposition from the outside, they will have to find their own way out of it, sure if they want we can lend a hand but ultimately it's their responsibility to not fuck up their own country. It's a kind of non-interventionist interventionism. We are precisely limited by not backing dictatorships, unlike Russia which prefers people who it can bribe, China which actually doesn't care one way or the other, regarding it as simply business, and the US well they're not even really in Africa but you know all to well how they treated, and are treating, South America. 60 fucking years and they're still pissed Cuba dared to rebel against them as colonial overlords.
Side note yes you should totally look into Wagner's operations in Africa. If that doesn't look like an attempt at colonialism then I don't know what does.
Who needs K-pop when you have the insanity that produces Eurovision.
I mean... it's respected. It's funky. But also rather specific, or alternatively used as ingredient in other styles. But speaking of Eurovision. No I don't know what that is, either, there's a reason there's a gazillion Eurovision drinking games.
Hmm. K.I.Z. is all the rage among the younger lefties but I could never really get into hip-hop. Other bands make other kinds, cult classic not in the least because of the lyrics, and then, well, over here everything ultimately turns out metal.
Not German, Germanic would fit better, genre is proto-germanic ritual folk. The band is as much German as Norwegian as Danish and the relation to Ukraine is in the theme and lyrics of the song. Ukrainians, btw, are an age-old mixture of Slavic and Germanic culture, Vikings settled there when travelling between the Baltic and Black Sea and mixed with the local Slavic population starting about 750CE.
As to Ukrainian music -- I'm a bit stumped but there's definitely Jinjer. They also punch way above their weight in Eurovision, counted by wins per time participated they lead the pack.
But as I didn't accost you with enough metal yet I'll add what should have been Germany's entry last year before the powers that be decided it to be "not suitable for radio play", which radio stations then promptly commented by playing it up and down.
You know I tried to come up with South American artists but failed twice -- first idea was Manu Chao, but the guy is French of Basque-Galician descent, and then Santana, well, closer, at least he's (originally) Mexican.
If you ask around in Spain or Portugal they'll know more of your stuff. And, just remembered, for some reason DTH are popular in Argentinia.