1424
Wagner boss Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1424 points (98.6% liked)
World News
32323 readers
865 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Were the Russians also doing chattel slavery like the west was for literally hundreds of years? Like sure conditions for serfs weren't great, but the transatlantic slave trade, the mass genocide of the americas, the subjugation of africa, india and china built the wealth of europe. You're trying to act like these two things are the same and they're not
lmao
seriously though:
Where's the lie? You guys think that's a good thing. Link to more info
They were abhorrent. You're really playing semantics here, conditions were essentially slave-like just as, say, Cuba under Batista.
No. Water power did, Europe has an absurd number of suitable streams for grain mills which allowed the creation of extensive trade, merchant, and scholar classes -- as they could be fed. Which led to technological superiority which led to the capacity to roll over other nations (and the presumption that it was the right thing to do). Without that pre-existing wealth all that colonising would not have been possible.
You're accusing me of condoning or advocating genocide?
It was definitely the slavery
If it was slavery then why didn't Africa develop that quickly? They're the ones who sold the slaves!
Because they weren't the ones working the slaves to death in Caribbean plantations. Have you read any history?
Also there were plenty of indigenous slaves taken, whole generations worked to death in mines to send silver back to europe
No they did it in Africa.
go on
...for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.
As said: The primary cause of Europe's wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.
colonizer apologia
Where, precisely, did I excuse that behaviour?
Really the reading comprehension among hexbears is at disappointing levels. Too much circle-jerking in isolation, I guess, rots the brain.
Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You're hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They "invented" all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the 'natural order'.
Based on how you're responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.
I'm merely saying how things are, why Europe was in the position it was, why it has the edge it has. You know, material realism.
Yes, and that's why I point out that it's silly to say 'these are both colonial empires' when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you're trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.
Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation... tries to colonise.
Also you're the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.
They're the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.
There's plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.
The US gets brought up because it's the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don't get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn't exist lmao.
A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in "Russian law", not "international law") incorporated parts of the defendant's territory into itself.
Also there's exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can't countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.
lmao, one sentence later. There's already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?
sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it's only viable because of US support right now.
Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.
The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.
It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that's what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only 'cares' about muslim life when it's time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.
There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.
The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal
Yes I know, that's why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.
You already told me to fuck off for pointing out that parts of Ukraine have been getting shelled by its own government for over 8 years, considering that response, yes that was my conclusion.
No. I told you to fuck off for this:
Yes, Ukraine has been shelling Russian positions in those regions for quite a while now.
Donetsk city has been routinely getting hit for years, it's why the SMO started
and again here you are cheerleading for indiscriminately killing civilians
A resounding no. The worst collateral damage happened under Poroshenko, one of the reasons why he lost against Zelenskyy.
People were calling for them to intervene immediately after the coup in 2014 and they didn't. Doesn't mean that wasn't still the reason for the intervention years later.
Ватник отъебись сказал мне не слушаешь урод
It was a coup though, what do you think it was?
A special electoral operation. Yanukovich reneged on election promises, people didn't like that and protested, he tried to turn Ukraine into a dictatorship, people liked that even less and protested even more, NATO sent... politicians, to negotiate compromises, protesters wanted to hear nothing about that, Yanukovich fled to his masters in Russia, got removed from office because AWOL, brief interim government, promptly followed by new elections which is how those kinds of iffy situations get solved in democracies.
You used the OSCE as a source previously, pray tell me what does the OSCE say about the following elections?
Yanukovich committed the worst crime: not wanting to take an IMF deal.
EU association agreement.
Noone gives a flying fuck about the IMF.
link for the curious ( I swear its not pig shit this time)
You're joking, right?
Noone gives a fuck whether the IMF gets what it wants or not. Not even the IMF in that case they simply don't give out money.
Also, the loan condition was about stopping to subsidise gas to be sold to consumers at below market price. Not sell off Anatonov or something.
Also the people have spoken. Pray tell, again, did you have a look at what the OSCE said about those elections? Seems to me like the Ukrainian electorate thought that the whole EU and not going bankrupt thing was worth paying realistic utility bills.
weird how when they don't get what they want there always seems to be some sort of intervention, financial or military against the offending party. Clearly there is no cause and effect that can ever be associated in the liberal mind.
Weird, so almost like there was an active war going on the whole time and the elections only reflected the most western-aligned people. Again, cause and effect are literally impossible to connect in the liberal mind.
Care to back that up with data? How does e.g. Argentine keep getting away with things?
And whose fault is that? Who prevented that people in occupied regions participated in the elections?
That's a very, very wrong take on the Ukrainian electorate. Both politically and I suppose geographically/ethically as the "people's republics" didn't at all cover Russian-speaking regions.
wtf are you talking about? link
They're already in debt hand getting pressured to do austerity, what do you even think is going on in the world?
I think the fault lies with the people who ignored any attempts at negotiation (minsk 1 and 2 peace agreements, and went on ramping up for a proxy war anyways)
There was a coup -> there is an active warzone in part of the country -> elections happen (so free and fair) -> The post coup elected government continues shelling the people living in the east anyways -> intervention happens
They're not doing austerity and yet getting their credit line renewed. Nor are they getting putsched.
Both broken by Russia(n backed forces). And exactly those forces also made sure that people can't vote.
this is being pressured to do austerity
Pretty sure the ceasefire violations were a 'both sides' thing, but for most of this fighting one side (Ukraine) has has a distinct advantage in terms of weaponry, considering the irregular forces.
The west was using those peace agreements to build up forces, Merkel literally admitted that on camera.
Yes it was bad, still not as bad as chattel slavery, but pretty bad, that's why it was completely deserved when they had a revolution. Not sure why you keep bringing up the colonization of siberia like it's relevant to what's going on now though. Comparing the amount of human life lost in that to the conquest of Americas though is just silly- there's no comparison and the same American government is still around since then!
This isn't a "did the UK or Russia kill more natives" kind of discussion. This is a "Russia is a colonial empire" kind of discussion.
And yes of course fewer natives died in Siberia, it's fucking cold there there were never many in the first place.
They have had several government changes since then. The US has the same constitution since it was doing its shit, the one with slavery in it. (they only do it to prisoners now though, don't ask too many questions about why they have the highest prison population in the world)
Calling them a 'colonial empire' especially from the seat of the worlds largest and most brutal historical colonial empires is laughable. (1/3 of Africa has had a monetary policy run out of Paris to this day, I wonder why they're kicking them out)