The war is already in the indiscriminate killing phase and moving towards just destroy city phase. Should be there in few days.
Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.
Slav fellowship does not work in wars. No fellowship works in wars.
They are clearly pulling their punches, likely because of the ethnic/racial dynamics of this conflict.
For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians.
The original propaganda line was that Ukrainians are basically Russians being taken home now. That nonsense was shattered by now. The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think.
-----------
War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up.
> They expected to win quickly and easily - and are shocked it did not happened.
Very possible, but neither you nor me are in the position to know that.
> Holodomor, which is still debated whether it counts as genocide or not. For that matter, historically, Russia holding punches was not exactly the thing. Not even toward Russians.
The Holodomor was clearly a completely orthogonal issue to this as it wasn't a military conflict.
> Not even toward Russians.
What are you referencing in terms of conflict? Probably not chechens, because that would only go in favor of GPs point.
> War in Syria did not started by indiscriminate bombing of cities. It got there through series of escalations when rebels refused to give up.
Russia started intervening in 2015, 4 years into the civil war, and immediately began with indiscriminate bombardment of cities like Raqqa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_...)
> The idea that this will stop punches now that they are refusing, purely because both are white, is something only Americans can think.
The domestic opposition in Russia over killing far fewer people is already much larger than it was to the intervention over Syria which killed far more civilians early on.
It is not something "only Americans can think" that Russians care more about the lives of people of close ethnic relation to them as compared to Syrians.
I meant purgers, internal thing toward Russians.
Oh, and yes, 2011 to 2015 is long time of escalations.
The question is whether they will pull punches when ennemy don't give up.
Neither of those were covered on the TV. They are also from over half a century ago.
> 2011 to 2015 is long time of escalations.
But 2014 to 2022 isn't?
The idea that Russians care equally about the lives of Syrians and the lives of ethnic Russians & Ukrainians is fantasy. It's obviously false, even if Russians killed Russians in purges 60 years ago.
> 2014 to 2022
Sure, Ukraine actually got ready to defend. Russia actually got to the point of being ready to start war again.
But, actual full war started last week with hope of 96 hours till victory, installation of puppet goverment and weak divided west. They wanted them to be kind of like Belarus, useful for further own plans.
> The idea that Russians care equally about the lives of Syrians and the lives of ethnic Russians & Ukrainians is fantasy. It's obviously false, even if Russians killed Russians in purges 60 years ago.
They don't care about Ukrainians lives at all. If they keep not winning, they will move to deep active hate. Ukrainians are already nazi for them and that includes the Jewish president. And that sentiment is real inside Russians who do believe oficial version.
Purges were not 60 years ago. They were the thing Stalin shot himself into own leg right before WWII. But, fuckup at start is on brand here. Stalin has raising popularity as maligned father of Russia in Russia last 10-15 years.
This is such a demagogy and a narrow-sighted view of history. It is always brought up only for the purpose of pouring more oil on the flames and turning up nationalistic tensions.
Holodomor has nothing to do with Ukrainians or Russians. It had happened all over the Soviet Union.
Much more Kazakhs had died relatively to their total population, and almost the same amount of Russians in an absolute value.
Hungers of 1930s were a global event, not something conjured by one particularly nasty Georgian.
Wikipedia mentions that it is contested if it is intentional or not.
Personaly for me, intentionality doesn't seem far fetched, given gulags, forced relocations to siberia without supplies and liberal presentation of history/facts (ussr guides said that kaliningrad is russian from olden times).
Aside from Ukraine and Kazakhstan (both under the control of "one particularly nasty Georgian") which other regions of the globe suffered from mass (1+ million) deaths caused by famine in the 1930s?
The goals are different. It's not like they are trying to make Syria part of the new Russian Empire.
Historically combatants have treated their opponents differently based on race and existing cultural attitudes. Don't see why it would be any different this time around.
Huh? when have that ever been true? European religious wars have been huge bloodsheds, communist regimes routinely genocided their own (often quite homogenous) populations, Lebanon's civil war saw neighbors shooting at each other.
The truth of the matter is : when people want to fight, they will find something that makes their enemies different and alien, because it's uncomfortable to imagine yourself in the place of the dead body that was previously a living human.
Race and Blood just so happen to be very convenient to latch on, because they're immutable (for now) genetic characteristics that make the gulf between you and your enemies look huge, a very desirable property in a dehumanization tactic. When people don't have those, they start latching on less immutable but nonetheless difficult-to-change things like religion, language and culture. And when people don't have those either, they start latching onto who their enemies voted for in the last election or their stance on <insert pet issue>, which are very mutable but also very numerous and can always be found and used as basis for dehumanization, their mutabilitiy and arbitrariness notwithstanding.
But the range there is from "super bad" to "genocidal", so.
There's always going to be dehumanization in war, but how much depends on things like race, culture, and existing attitudes towards the enemy.
Not sure how this supports your thesis. Are you trying to say that the punic wars was more devastating/brutal than the Peloponnesian because the first had people of different races fighting while the second had only Greeks fighting amongst themselves ? there are several problems with this :
- We have no estimates of the casualties on both sides of both conflicts, Wikipedia only has an estimate of one side of the Peloponnesian, and it's only the military casualties.
- In the Peloponnesian war, Sparta actually allied with the Persians. They were entirely OK with people of different races murdering their fellow Greeks, I think they had zero problems murdering their own race too. (and burning the whole city if it came to that, but it didn't, but that doesn't really mean Spartans were softer because their enemies were Greek, it just means the Athenians surrendered quicker and didn't try again, unlike the Punics)
>Japanese in the Warring States vs. Japanese in China in the 1930s
This is really comparing apples and oranges, those two wars are about 5-6 centuries apart, whatever you're comparing as proxy for 'brutal' or 'destructive' is very much confounded by technological advances in warfare.
>Compare the attitudes of the English towards the Germans in WWI vs in WWII.
I don't understand what this is trying to say. Did English attitudes toward Germany differ between WW1 and WW2 (besides the trivial differences explainable by the change in geopolitical atmosphere and warfare style)? how much of that is both parties seeing each other as different or similar races?
>the behavior of the Germans on the different fronts
I never said that race-based dehumanization isn't brutally effective and leads to astonishing results when it could be used, in fact I placed it at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to dehumanization algorithms.
What I'm denying here is the claim that this efficiency of dehumanization can't be achieved using other methods or combination of methods, I'm asserting that it can, just with more effort/propaganda. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case in this specific Ukraine-Russia conflict, I don't trust the hose of (dis)information on this conflict the internet spews every day anyway, so I don't really have a strong opinion on anything in it besides the most naked facts.
All what I'm disputing is the claim
>Wars with same-race combatants are, always or most of the time or on average, less brutal than wars with different races fighting
I'm saying that this is false and reductive, Religion in particular is a very strong counterexample. Communism-style genocides is another.
I'm not going to reply line by line to your other points. Though I disagree with your interpretation of my argument it's clear we aren't going to reach agreement there, but this statement is just wrong. Genocide has occurred throughout history, including at times prior to and contemporary with the warring states period. Technology has nothing to do with it. For example the Dzungar's in China in the 1700s. More recently the Rwandan genocide was carried out with primitive weapons. There are numerous other examples.
There's plenty of videos of Russian troops not attacking civilians and surrendering. But there's also videos of them attacking civilian targets...
It seems there's some Slavic fellowship at play but that it's mostly among regular soldiers, not the leadership. Then again, maybe the gross incompetence shown by the Russians is a result of said fellowship + plausible deniability...
Either way, the war's gone shockingly bad for the Russians. Whether or not Ukraine's reports are entirely correct, everyone can agree it's embarrassing to the Russians.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30528382
Is it possible this community you claim to speak for is not everything you think it is?
Based on his speeches, both before invasion and the leaked one that was supposed to go out after a win, Putins objective is genocide. "The Ukrainian question", dude is literally quoting Hitler.
Yes, Russia was extremely brutal in Chechnya and in Syria. But consider how brutal the US was in Iraq, and consider how we would operate in a hypothetical war against Canada.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa... for one of the full horror stories.