I am an Indian - I am only "pro-Russian" or "pro-American" depending on the politics.
3,189 karma · joined December 12, 2023
And all of them were introduced with care to reduce the transition pain points of the MSMEs. None of it was as deliberately convoluted and poorly rolled out as the initial rollout of the GST by the Modi government. The tax officials themselves did not understand half of it, adding to the chaos and confusion of implementing it. Again, all this was deliberate and by design, in my opinion.
> ... but there is also a market for $150 Best Buy laptops for broke college students.
Sure. Why do you think such a market exists? Compare it with the Automobile industry, where really cheap cars (comparable to the $150 laptop market segment) don't really exist. Instead we have a flourishing second-hand market - a whole new industry around selling used cars. Even if a cheaper, lower quality car were to exist, people would still buy a good-quality, used car over a cheaper, lower quality one. Why? Repairability. Why would I buy a cheaper low quality car, if I can buy a good quality car that I can repair as needed, for the same price or even lower. A market for cheaper, new laptops exist because today you fear buying an older computer that is no longer repairable or upgradeable. (And note that it isn't as if the old products wouldn't make money - people will still need to buy the parts for it. The profits would be lesser than selling whole devices though). It is because electronics have somehow escaped the purview of consumer rights and repairability that even the Automobile industry (and others) have started including more and more electronics in them to make their products less repairable.
No, sounds about right - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. NATO "members" are funding Ukraine and its military. NATO "members" are training Ukraine's military. NATO "members" are arming Ukraine's military. For me, that is indeed a "NATO funded, NATO trained" army. (And surely, Ukraine's political and military leadership aren't attending NATO summits and meets for the drinks they provide, are they now? - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c29d03574zdo ).
> This isn't a war that can be won militarily by either side.
I disagree. If the west send their soldiers to fight alongside Ukrainians Russia can be defeated. But they won't. Otherwise, Russia is already winning militarily. Without NATO "member" funding, Ukraine doesn't have the economic or military capability to fight the Russians. That is a reality that remains unchanged.
> Ukraine wins by surviving
What does "surviving" mean to you? The moment the west stops its funds, Ukraine's economy will collapse.
> Russia loses if Ukraine survives
Russia has no problem with Ukraine's existence, as long as it remains a neutral State that doesn't undermine Russian security.
> If, by treaty or exhaustion, the lines freeze where they are, then Ukraine has won and Russia has lost
And do you really believe that will happen? I don't. There is absolutely no way Russia will sign any treaty allowing a "freeze" or a "ceasefire", especially with EU and / or NATO peacekeepers. (It would lob nukes on Ukraine before it agrees to such a treaty). That Russia isn't advancing at a fast pace in the frontline, to capture Ukrainian territory, doesn't mean it can't. As a former Ukrainian general said, "Its [Russia's] strategy increasingly rests not on rapid advances but on exhausting Ukraine economically, militarily and psychologically. Russia still possesses deeper reserves of manpower and industrial capacity in several critical sectors, including ballistic missile production. Air defence alone cannot fully offset that advantage". While the western media obsesses on the capture of territory in Eastern Ukraine, it isn't the only military goal of Russia. Even as it fights on the frontline, it is also focusing on crippling (or even decimating) Ukraine's economy and military capabilities. Sure, Russians are suffering heavy loss in terms of manpower. But that doesn't matter in the short-term against the Ukrainians as Russia has a bigger population (it will however matter in the future against a stronger foe).
> Russia, OTOH has a barren, parched wasteland earned at a ruinous cost. All the industry in the Donbass is destroyed, and the fertile wheatfields of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson can't be irrigated ...
The grapes are suddenly sour now? Forget Russia, consider what Ukraine has lost ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... ):
> The current occupied territories have a long history as Ukraine’s industrial motor ... Important parts of the former Soviet military-industrial complex are still situated in the southeastern provinces of Ukraine, and the Zaporizhzhia region constitutes an important producer of metals and machinery. Prior to the conflict, the Kherson region played a vital role in the production of vegetable products, vegetable fats, and oils, but with the occupation of the southern regions, Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of its farmlands ... The macroimpact of this occupation is not to be neglected. As illustrated in Figure 1 (visualizing regional contributions to Ukraine’s GDP prior to the conflict), the current Russian occupation of the majorities of the Luhansk (1 percent of prewar GDP), Donetsk (5.2 percent), Kherson (1.6 percent), and Zaporizhzhia (4.2 percent) regions results in a combined loss of 12 percent of Ukrainian GDP. Moreover, these losses need to be added to the economic losses Ukraine already suffered following the 2014 annexation of Crimea (3.05 percent of GDP in 2013) and the occupation of portions of Donetsk (a drop from 10.83 percent of Ukrainian GDP in 2013 to 5.78 percent in 2015) and Luhansk (a drop from 3.62 percent in 2013 to 1.2 percent in 2015) oblasts ... Studying these regions in detail shows that Russia succeeded in occupying key infrastructure of importance to the rest of the Ukrainian economy. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for example, accounted for almost half of Ukraine’s nuclear power production prior to the conflict, whereas 40 percent of Ukrainian steel was produced in Mariupol. Furthermore, the Russian offensive in southern Ukraine resulted in the occupation of several of Ukraine’s major maritime ports (most importantly Mariupol and Berdyansk). This further facilitated Russian efforts to impose a maritime blockade. This confronts Ukraine with severe logistical challenges, since 75 percent of its foreign trade took place through sea routes prior to the war.. economic perspective also illustrates the rationale for Russia to have fought so hard, and at such cost, for control of Bakhmut—and for it to continue its war efforts in neighboring eastern regions, like Dnipropetrovsk. This region is almost absent from discussions as a strategic objective, despite its important and longstanding role as a center of metallurgy and military industry. During the Cold War, this region was the world’s biggest producer of nuclear missiles. The economic importance of this region comes to the fore when we look at the 2021 regional GDP contributions. As demonstrated in Figure 1, Dnipropetrovsk accounts for over 10 percent of Ukrainian GDP, serving as an important contributor to the Ukrainian economy.
> What's telling to me is that you're unable to discuss Ukraine's future as anything but a pawn for western interests. You don't think Ukraine has agency to chart its own course, military or politically.
Yes, that is true because I view it as a conflict of superpower politics. While I don't fault the Ukrainians to strive to be free of foreign influence in their politics, in their political naivety they've overplayed their hands and just traded Russian influence for western ones. The only difference is that the west offers golden political cages ... (As its economy has been devastated due to the war, Ukraine is now 100% dependent on its foreign masters for the next decade at least).
Why did the Winter Wars start? The Russians knew that the Nazis wouldn't honour the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and that Germany would have to use Finnish territories to invade Russia. So Stalin made some pre-emptive demands on the Finns to enhance security at their borders (territorial swap to create buffer zones, Soviet bases on strategic areas in Finland and in return Finland was offered security guarantees and trade). Ofcourse, due to historic mistrust between the Finns and the Russians, and as this impinged on the sovereignty of the Finns, the Finns had plenty of legitimate concerns to these demands. But what really tipped them to fight the Russians was the false hope that western superpowers would help them fight the Russians. The west didn't / couldn't. Just like with Ukraine today.
> Finland was very much alone.
Just as Ukraine is fighting the Russians alone, today, right? That is factual. It is also factual that just as Ukraine is backed by many western powers in its fight against the Russians today, Finland was also backed by many western powers in its fight against the Soviet Union. The scale of effort may be different, but the politics are the same - encourage a proxy to fight the Russians, to weaken them, without sacrificing any of their own countrymen.
> The war ended ... because Russians had broken through the main defensive line ...
Yeah, and that the Finns were smart is my point too - they knew when to stop fighting and surrender! Ukraine is losing men and territory, which it has no hopes of replenishing or regaining militarily, however much it hopes it can inflict some kind of defeat.
> Finland did not believe that territory was unimportant.
That's debatable. Yeah, they licked their wounds after the Winter War, made a new alliance with Nazi Germany (who they assumed was a stronger partner) and when they felt confident to fight again, they did. And then after 3+ years, when they realised that they were again on the losing side, they stopped fighting and pragmatically surrendered. Read the history notes - Finland actually lost more territory after the Continuation war than it did in the Winter Wars. Apart from the loss of territory, they also had to pay huge reparations, fight the German army and rid of them from its territories, demobilise most of its army and agree to a reduced military and be neutral. And they did all that.
The pragmatism displayed by the Finnish leaders has to be appreciated. They fought, made peace, fought again, realised they (and Germany) were on the losing side, made peace again and even signed a "Friendship treaty" with USSR and gained the trust of the Russians again with sincere compliance. Subsequent Finnish governments were highly conscious of Soviet security interests, and Finland avoided policies that Moscow considered threatening. This bought them peace and security to strengthen themselves during this period.
As for the demands on Ukraine being different, note that the Russian demand on Ukraine, for a long time, was only to remain a neutral state and maintain its multi-cultural identity. Even after the western instigated coup, all Zelensky had to do was de-escalate domestic tension and declare that it would not join NATO and remain neutral. That's it. Instead, he escalated confrontation with Russia. If he had actually gained anything from that, I would call him a smart politician too. But what has been the result - he lost Crimea, he lost most parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine's military is being decimated, it's economic infrastructure is facing heavy destruction, it's GDP is in the negative and now it is in danger of becoming a land locked country in the future too.
> As to neutrality, Finland didn't join NATO because a 80-year-old clock ran out ...
They were neutral as long as it served their interest. But they were also pragmatic to prepare for the day they had to choose a side. That is what the 80+ years bought them. If they had let their ego dictate their war, they would either be a Russian territory or a war-ravaged nation with a broken economy like Ukraine is now.
> Ukraine pursued the same kind of "sitting on both stools" neutrality and it didn't work out ...
It chose not to be neutral and became a pawn in the superpower politics between the west and Russia. It is as simple as that.
- Free Bus Service Schemes for Women in India: A Gendered Approach to Public Transport and Economic Inclusion - https://www.impriindia.com/insights/policy-update/free-bus-s...
- Freebie or Freedom? Tamil Nadu’s Free Bus Travel Scheme for Women - https://www.impriindia.com/insights/policy-update/free-bus-s...
> The Quincy Institute routinely vilifies supporters of Israel in Washington. Its principal goal is to reorient American policy in the Middle East, marginalising America’s two leading allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, while promoting Iran as a future regional hegemon. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby, are both Quincy fellows and regular contributors to its website. In March, Mearsheimer gave an interview to Al Jazeera, which the Institute promoted under the headline, “Israel Lobby’s Influence on U.S. Policy as Powerful as Ever.”
Sounds no different to what Israel lobbyists do in the US too, though? American democracy at work ...
- AI Search Has a Misinformation Problem — and DuckDuckGo Just Proved It - https://www.informertech.com/post/duckduckgo-reddit-misinfor...
Does it though? Remember that the Global South outnumbers the west in terms of population. And the west isn't really as politically popular as westerners like to believe:
- Why do some people support Russia's war in Ukraine? - https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/81254/why-do-so...
- Why isn't the Global South pro-Israel like the West? - https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/82511/why-isnt-...
As more and more of these nations come online (Redditors already complain about Indians "hijacking" the whole of Reddit), many in the west are experiencing the cognitive dissonance between what you've been told of how the rest of the world think about you vs what they actually think. (Of course, I am not discounting the role of State actors in trying to shape the discourse online, and I agree with you that is also a factor).
Yes, in some ways, it actually is. Russia has been fighting a NATO funded, NATO trained army for 4+ years now ... it has strengthened its domestic production, forged new economic and military alliances (that are already helping it in this war), and still hasn't had to do forced conscriptions.
All the other things that you said - Russian economy becoming weaker, Finland and Sweden joining NATO, Baltic becoming NATO sea etc. etc. - while true is also telling in that it has nothing to do with how Ukraine fares now or how it will help Ukraine today in its war. Sure, it gives cause for some westerners to celebrate it. But if they are also willing to overlook the price for it - the destruction of Ukraine - it betrays that these same westerners also don't really care about Ukraine. And they are happy for Ukraine to fight the Russians, till the last Ukrainian ...
> How's that worked out for Russia? Finland is now actually in NATO ...
Finland's leadership has definitely proven to be much, much smarter than Ukraine's, and Ukraine should learn from them as what happened with Finland a few decades back is exactly what is happening with Ukraine now.
Just before WW2, under the false assurances of then western powers, Finland decided to fight a war with USSR. Like with Ukraine today, many countries (13) backed Finland and supported its war effort with money and armaments (the major ones being Sweden, France, the United States, and Great Britain). Like with Ukraine today, they gave them everything but what Finland needed most to defeat the Russians - decent weapons and soldiers. The result of the Winter Wars was that, despite the Finnish military fighting bravely (like Ukraine today), Finland lost around 10% of its territory and 20% of its industrial capacity. Unlike Ukraine however, after 105 days of war, Finnish leaders realised the western powers were more interested in being cheerleaders than fighting the Russians themselves. And they made the hard but wise decision to end the war. They ceded the territories captured by the Russians to USSR and they agreed to be neutral. Finnish leaders acted with wisdom and humility - they prioritised people and soldiers over territory and their own ego. It bought them 80+ years to build up their strength and savvily join NATO without losing a single soldier today to the Russians.
Contrast that with Ukraine's current leadership that still buys the fake flattery of the west that "they are winning" and "Russia is losing", even while facing the stark reality that Russia already holds around 20% of their territory ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/14/trump-putin-meeting... ), has nearly destroyed 40-50% of their industrial capacity ( https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-strategy-in-ukrain... , https://www.rt.com/russia/632597-demilitarization-through-de... ), and that their western backers will not send a single soldier to fight alongside them (even as the Ukrainians have to fight North Koreans helping the Russians - https://www.rt.com/russia/616572-brothers-in-arms-pyongyang-... ).
See, it is easy to be driven by hate (for the Russians) and be cheerleaders without doing anything substantial to help the Ukrainians - they cannot win unless American and Europeans are willing to fight alongside them. As that won't be happening, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked someone else here - how many Ukrainians need to die, and how much territory does it need to lose to make you realise they cannot win the war alone?
- Demonetisation, GST and lockdown: How the Modi government has wrecked India’s small businesses - https://scroll.in/article/1011509/demonetisation-gst-and-loc...
- India after Goods and Services Tax: Hundreds of thousands lose jobs, small businesses shut down - https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/india-after-goods-and-...
- How GST is killing small businesses with inspector raj and suffocating compliance - https://theprint.in/opinion/how-gst-is-killing-small-busines...
Dr. Manmohan Singh's conception of GST was indeed a good and necessary idea. But they way it was twisted and implemented to benefit crony capitalists and destroy India's informal economy was foolish as it was corrupt.
GST implementation, Demonetisation, unnecessary COVID restrictions etc. resulted in anarchy that was all designed to drain wealth (make labour cheaper) and / or transfer wealth from ordinary people or small businesses to the corporates (to make select rich, richer). He has also weakened all social welfare programs of the previous government by reducing funds or introducing restrictions designed to sabotage it for the intended beneficiaries. The centralised decision-making stems from the fascist ideology that he subscribes to (RSS, the indian organisation that he emerged from, admired Mussolini and Hitler).
You hope you can ... I didn't login to a Google Account for a few months now and it suddenly wants a lot of personal details to do additional "verification" because I am "suspicious".
Demanding "security guarantees" while undermining Russian security is oxymoronic. Ukraine ceded from the USSR under the specific guarantee to the Russians that they would remain a "permanently neutral" State that would not join any military alliance that was against Russia - Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine ( https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991/ukrainian-independence/uk... ) states:
> The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear-free principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to purchase nuclear weapons.
The founding leaders of the Ukraine honoured that and this was even enshrined in Ukraine's constitution - to be a neutral state that would not endanger Russian security. And under these leaders, Ukraine lived in peace. It was only when certain Ukrainian leaders decided that they wish to form ties with the west, even if it meant undermining Russian security, that Russia became belligerent against Ukraine. (Which is a completely natural political response). The straw that broke the camel's back was when these leaders explicitly and publicly stated that they wanted to join NATO (a military alliance specifically against Russia) ... Talk about idiocy - why would any country knowingly allow another country to undermine its own security, if it can do something about it?