[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: War News Thread: Round 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
My understanding is that about one quarter of the Russian soldiers who captured Berlin in 1945 were woman.

I have no doubt that the Russian government will draft women when they run out of men.
 
My understanding is that about one quarter of the Russian soldiers who captured Berlin in 1945 were woman.

I have no doubt that the Russian government will draft women when they run out of men.
I do. The Soviets aspired to be more progressive, modern, western (actually ahead and beyond anything the the other westerners could be) and European than anyone else – they were the self-professed vanguard of all historical development. THIS official Russia has rejected Europe and wants to be the direct opposite of that. They are way more in the line of "the three Ks" for women (Kinder, Küche, Kirche – works in Scottish English at least, as: kids, kitchen, kirk).

And much as Putin and his propaganda teams wants to feign re-fighting WWII, that is nothing like what is happening. Relatively Communism kept things sane in the USSR. Putin's Russia shorn of most ideology beyond power and imperialism is just off its rocker here – or rather, it is what makes Putin's Russia de facto Fascist, not that they would even be able to recognize it.
 
Last edited:
I do. The Soviets aspired to be more progressive, modern, western (actually ahead and beyond anything the the other westerners could be) and European than anyone else
They aspired to be progressive and modern. Being Western or European wasn't associated with progressiveness in USSR any more than being African or Asian, just like generally anywhere outside of Western world.
 
Every time I think we're at the bottom, there's a knock from below.
Be a man. Be a part of a Nazi mercenary group and kill Ukrainian civilians.
Be a man, Be a part of a campaign that destroyed a country while claiming to liberate them.
Be a man, Be cannonfodder next to convicted murderers.
 
No, but I deeply respect those who work hard and risk their lives serving their country. Soldiers, firefighters, miners, EMERCOM servicemen, etc.
Equating those who fight elements protecting and providing for the well-being of civilians with those who are part of an invading army fighting for the purpose of landgrab and ethnic purges... Is it just another case of your favorite: a false equivalency?
Being Western or European wasn't associated with progressiveness in USSR any more than being African or Asian
Load of bollocks.
Maybe official propaganda stated that, but not many people believed it. Especially those who saw life abroad or were lucky to possess a thing or two made in the West: a tape recorder, a TV set, a car, clothing or footwear. For a common Soviet person it was literally impossible to believe that you can just come to a shop with a huge selection of food and for a reasonable price buy whatever you want without spending half a day in a queue.
A country where toilet paper was a luxury item all the way until its collapse in 1991 and the whole country (except for the upper classes of course) were wiping their butts with newspapers.
A country where female hygiene products were literally unheard of and women were making do with rags or cotton wool (the latter was a deficit item too).
A country where the only accessible form of recreation and entertainment for the masses was to get drunk and spend the rest of the day blacked-out at the side of the road.
Those are just a couple of examples from the top of my head to show how progressive USSR was.
 


Much freedoms and liberties. More than West.

Freedom to be poisoned, shot or jailed for being critical to the regime....which Western country has it?
 
They aspired to be progressive and modern. Being Western or European wasn't associated with progressiveness in USSR any more than being African or Asian, just like generally anywhere outside of Western world.
Yeah sure... being rich, democratic and advanced is so shabby. Sovie Union and now Russia are models to follow for... NK?
Seriously, since Peter the Great Russia has tried be like Europe and failed miserably, and it seems it will continue failing. Your attitude embracing a totalitarian underdeveloped craphole is the easiest way to survive and be succesful in such environment but is also the best way of keeping Russia a totalitarian underdeveloped craphole.
 
Yeah sure... being rich, democratic and advanced is so shabby. Sovie Union and now Russia are models to follow for... NK?
Seriously, since Peter the Great Russia has tried be like Europe and failed miserably, and it seems it will continue failing. Your attitude embracing a totalitarian underdeveloped craphole is the easiest way to survive and be succesful in such environment but is also the best way of keeping Russia a totalitarian underdeveloped craphole.
Well, red_elk is right in that in official Soviet rhetoric, anything "Western" was never described as "progressive" but usually as "decadent", "decaying" or "rotting".
 
They aspired to be progressive and modern. Being Western or European wasn't associated with progressiveness in USSR any more than being African or Asian, just like generally anywhere outside of Western world.
Except Marxism assumes a unilinear path to the future, everyone has to travel that, and Europe and the western world were where it was at – and the USSR just stole a march on them towards the beckoning future. You're just doing here what everyone in Russia seems keen on – beginning with its government – and inputing whatever the hell you would like to the the state of things as-if-it-were. That is a problem – for you not least – stop that.

The only possible exception was a nebulous term like "the asiatic mode of production" — and THAT was anathematic in Communist China (back when they were also Communists, not Xi-Jinping-Fascist like they are now), because it could possibly indicate some other form of development might actually be possible.
 
Well, red_elk is right in that in official Soviet rhetoric, anything "Western" was never described as "progressive" but usually as "decadent", "decaying" or "rotting".
Because the Soviet view of itself is that somehow it had managed to get a jump on history, and under the leadership The Party, Soviet (of Lenin, and Stalin...) society would somehow be able to skip some of the otherwise supposedly necessary seps of historical progression – meaning the west was "decadent" and headed for the "scrap heap of history" for not yet having made the revolutionary transition, or possibly even more disturbingly because somehow Capitalism might have found a way to claw-on to power through the advent REAL of the enemy to the Soviet system – which was not Nazism-à-la-Hitler or anything like that, but actually Social Democracy, which the Comintern officially labeled as "Social Fascism". That was what they really thought they needed to fight post-1928-ish.

The point is that the Soviets saw their society as that better thing that through necessary historical progression that will replace what the west had – as the necessary evolution of it, but NOT its essential negation. Marx and Liberals like J.S. Mill tended to describe Liberal politics and society in much the same terms. It's just that Marx considered himself to go "beyond" Mill and every other Liberal.
 
Except Marxism assumes a unilinear path to the future, everyone has to travel that, and Europe and the western world were where it was at – and the USSR just stole a march on them towards the beckoning future. You're just doing here what everyone in Russia seems keen on – beginning with its government – and inputing whatever the hell you would like to the the state of things as-if-it-were. That is a problem – for you not least – stop that.
From Marxist point of view, USSR wasn't aspiring to become more Western or European either, simply because it was considered already more progressive and advanced in the path to socialism and communism, comparing to Western capitalist countries.

I was talking more about Western cultural values, which, consciously or not, many posters here assume to be the role model for entire world, USSR included.
 
or possibly even more disturbingly because somehow Capitalism might have found a way to claw-on to power through the advent REAL of the enemy to the Soviet system – which was not Nazism-à-la-Hitler or anything like that, but actually Social Democracy, which the Comintern officially labeled as "Social Fascism". That was what they really thought they needed to fight post-1928-ish.

I have to point out that this propaganda line lasted until the Nazi seizure of power in Germany whereupon the Communist Party in Germany was outlawed; after that the line went right back to "popular front", unity of "progressive forces" against fascism. Molotov-Ribbentrop interrupted that but the concept of "social fascism" was really developed only during that brief period from the start of the Depression (the idea being that capitalism's final revolutionary crisis had arrived, so social democracy's offering of a reformed capitalism as an alternative to revolutionary socialism was seen as the big danger) to the banning and suppression of the KPD by the Nazis.
 
I was talking more about Western cultural values, which, consciously or not, many posters here assume to be the role model for entire world, USSR included.

They're certainly better than the Soviet ones.

I can tell, my country has plenty of experience with both.
 
The whole approach to gender and military in Russia is another millstone around its neck, reducing military efficacity.

To digress for a moment, the gendered aspects of this make it all the more amusing that US conservatives were pointing to the Russian military as an exemplar of "non-woke" (and therefore implicitly better) military in contrast with the "woke" policies in the US military.

That is, they were doing that before February of 2022. Now, not so much. I think one thing this war has shown is that hypermasculine swagger is no substitute for military readiness or capability.
 
I have to point out that this propaganda line lasted until the Nazi seizure of power in Germany whereupon the Communist Party in Germany was outlawed; after that the line went right back to "popular front", unity of "progressive forces" against fascism. Molotov-Ribbentrop interrupted that but the concept of "social fascism" was really developed only during that brief period from the start of the Depression (the idea being that capitalism's final revolutionary crisis had arrived, so social democracy's offering of a reformed capitalism as an alternative to revolutionary socialism was seen as the big danger) to the banning and suppression of the KPD by the Nazis.
Marxists might have forgotten about it all out of convenience – the "reform Socialists" never really did, at least not in Europe. US might be different...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom