Wagner boss Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia
Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia, with nine other people on board also dead
You're viewing a single thread.
Wait, am I reading this right that the plane was shot down by russian air defence? If this is backed up at all by anything like a russian source, then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened (both are true but I thought the kremlin would at least try to say/show otherwise).
How does russia keep messing up this bad? I am constantly shocked and awed.
I don't understand the logic here. When the putsch occured and then ignomously fizzled out, I saw Putin as weak for letting Pringles walk out with a (relative) slap on the wrist. Taking Prigo out of the picture was overdue. Obviously, anyone would feel threatened by an semi-autonomous mercenary army, so removing its leadership and breaking it up is just a rational course of action that probably should have been done sooner from that POV
If they took him out before the deal was made sure, this soon after just shows weakness and a lack of credibility. They did the equivalent to getting into a bar fight, talking it out instead and then in front of every one sucker punching the other guy.
It's more like taking it outside then shooting them and their buddies in the face. Message sent
then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened
If they let him live, they're weak. If they kill him, they're weak.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
The USSR is not the russian federation and the later is an oligarchy. Why do you think such cold war arguments (that over simplify) have some sort of play in this conflict?
I also noticed you skated right on by the "can not be trusted" part of my quoted text.
Do you think I'm talking about the USSR, or about how American propaganda cultivates the mentality of "they are wrong no matter what they do"?
Your entire argument was about the soviet union and its cold war relationship with the US. I have had it up to my nipples here on how fixated you all are on the US, I am not from the US, I don't like the US, I am sick of somehow having to explain to people who apparently think the US is evil but simultaneously think the world revolves around it.
WE GET IT YOU ARE AMERICAN AND YOU ARE DIFFERENT BUT LIKE MOST AMERICANS CAN NOT STAND WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
The quote is from "inventing reality by michael parenti". the cold war is an EXAMPLE, the authors POINT is that media will interpret literally ANY EVENT in a bad way to make enemies look morally inferior and bad.
But I am not media, the post I made is my honest take, and in this case the media stating this news is wagner and the russian state. How does this wall of text help me understand the apparent flaw in my statement?
They are suggesting that you have learned to reason backwards from certain conclusions.
Nah connect the dots by yourself, you cant be this unironically oblivious.
I can and very much am. Please put some effort into this.
Are socialist states immune from this fallacy?
Do you know what an example is? What about an analogy?
Why do you ask? I think you replied to the wrong post
This take perfectly embodies how libs only care about aesthetics.
I am lost and this is a reply to my own statement. May I ask you to expand on what a "lib" is, how I erred to be labelled as one, and finally how it is you think I care about aesthetics?
Can't speak for anyone else but I may be able to answer this.
A lib is a liberal, someone who is pro-capital, not an anti-capitalist (very little overlap with how liberal tends to be defined in ordinary language in the US). Optics, relating to how people see the event, is idealism not materialism. Liberalism is idealist, unlike Marxism, which is materialist.
The dig at liberalism and aesthetics is likely a critique of the implication that what this looks like has much to do with the material reality. That's an aesthetic argument. It doesn't matter what this looks like because the optics don't affect the material relations. Someone who elevates the optics at the expense of the material relations is making an idealist, likely a liberal argument.
Hence the comment embodying an aesthetic argument of the kind that liberals often make.
Ok, thank you, but what in my comment was at the expense of the material relations?
You're welcome. I'm glad you're taking this in the spirit in which it's intended. When Marxists criticise idealism, the target is the liberal world outlook, not the individual.
By implication, really. Focusing on what people think of Russia's/Putin's trustworthiness rather than on it's record or the factors that would keep it honest, so to speak. It's Ukraine that violated Minsk, apparently prompted by France, Germany, and 'NATO'. Looking at the optics, that seems a little more duplicitous than assassinating someone who attempted a coup (if this was an assassination and if what happened before can be called a coup).
Would I trust a single person, e.g. Putin to uphold an international agreement? It doesn't matter. It's not a one-man show. War is expensive and the longer it goes on for the more expensive it becomes, in support as well as the cost of arms, soldiers, etc.
Nobody has to trust Putin. An agreement would be maintained because material factors require it to be maintained. What westerners think it's by-the-by. (I'm assuming you're not Russian as you were asking about Russian sources—I'm not asking you to confirm or deny as I don't want you to dox yourself; I'm just trying to give an answer that makes sense from the available evidence.)
Time for some self-reflection.
Please guide me on this, other wise these are just vague statements that make us both look silly.
The capitol riot was a threat to our precious democracy! / prigozhin’s coup attempt shows how weak putler is!
What? I am lost. Are you making some sort of US connection here?
First time meeting hexbears?
No, but when they actually try to say something I do like to engage.
No, but when they actually try to say something I do like to engage.
Well do concider yourself more than welcome to stop by our news megathread and join us in rolling in the muck like the filthy geopolitical news hogs we are
One side uses its legal system to deal with an institutional threat, while the other performatively offers an olive branch and then stabs them on the back. Not quite the same. One side smells a lot like a mafia
The USA has always been a fascist country (just ask Native Americans and descendants of slaves). If you think slapping a few leaders on the wrist is going to stop fascism here, I would invite you to have a look at the history of Weimar Germany.
This is true, but I was answering to a comment implying an equivalence between the indictment of the traitors in the US and a the extrajudicial plane crash in Russia. If instead of getting a slap on the wrist they were being thrown out of windows at someone's whim, I would not feel more reassured about the state of the US.
Russia decapitation their own PMC org that tried to coup them does not mean they cannot be negotiated with
No but the agreement being broken that was created though Belarus does.
Minsk I and II
Sorry I do want to talk about the other broken treaties but I think you replied to the wrong comment.
I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you're implying that means that he can't be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.
Oh I was not under that impression, both in my memory russia violated.
Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.
What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?
The Minsk II thing is in the link:
More than anything else, it was the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 – especially the provision that would give the predominantly Russian-speaking regions a special constitutional status – that caused Russia to threaten military action against Ukraine. Time after time in recent weeks, Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov made it clear in meetings and press conferences that the key to resolving the situation in and around Ukraine was the full implementation of Minsk 2, and many hoped the Normandy format meeting of representatives of the leaders of the four countries in Berlin on Feb. 10, two weeks after they had met in Paris for eight hours, would produce enough progress toward the full implementation of Minsk 2 to ward off the threat of a Russian invasion.
Yeah that is the russian statement but reading the agreement leaves me thinking that is not 100% on the level. They seem to think they where not an involved party in the agreement and did not have abide by it. Here is a translation of the agreement, if you have a better version let me know.
https://horlogedelinconscient.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Minsk-2-Full-text-UNIAN.pdf
I feel like Lukashenko will probably understand
Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).
