Tuukka R @ Tuuktuuk @sopuli.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

200

Joined

5 mo. ago

It will not necessarily continue receiving the same level of support. But it will receive support from all EU countries neighbouring the Russia, because that is a lot cheaper than what happens if the Russia gets a result that Putin can advertise as a Russian victory. Because then we are next.

These countries will not end their support anyway. With only our help, the Russia will increase its territorial gains to possibly almost two percent of Ukraine's total territory per year, but those gains will still be far from enough for the Russia to win before its economy goes down. The war will last longer that way, and more Ukrainians will die, but of course Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden don't want to have a war in their own countries. And the Danes are just awesome for reasons I cannot completely understand. We are only a fraction of the size of the whole EU, but we are not in a position to stop supporting Ukraine, and we are enough to slow the Russia enough to keep from winning.

They are Ukrainians. The Russia will do in all of Ukraine what it has been doing in the occupied areas. A Ukrainian has thus a far higher chance to die if he ends up under Russian occupation than if he tries to stop the Russia from occupying his country.

For Ukrainians it's a no-brainer. "If my country will probably stay independent without my help, I will do nothing. But if it looks like my country might lose its independence, of course I want to decrease my risk of dying, so I will go to the front to defend this country."

There are terror attacks against Ukrainian civilians every day. They are still torturing people who are not pro-Putin enough, like they have been doing for 11 years already. All of Ukraine will be one big Mariupol/Bucha/Kherson/Irpin, if the Russia manages to take over it. Why would anybody choose that?

It is non-operational, but not because of this strike to a refinery. These are two wholly separate attacks.

OP is about an air strike to a refinery.

The reports were made by reporters that were named and whose names weren't what you refer to.

Unless Palestine is in China, what happens or does not happen gives no privileges for China. What you're doing is indeed whataboutism.

My sources are newspaper articles whose sources are not the guy you're talking about.

Because the Palestinian and Bosnian genocides are not in China, they don't prove anything about China. At best they are whataboutism.

Of course they want to stop the massacre. Like I said: if the Russia gets too close to winning, and therefore dramatically increasing the scale of the massacre, more people will join to help at the front. You know, it's almost as if people didn't want to die?!

The Palestinian genocide takes place in Palestine, not in China. You are mistaken regarding that.

Who the hell is Zenz? First time I hear the name, and does not seem like a person I should bother to learn something from.

A camp where people are sent because of their ethnic background and where a large part of inmates die is a concentration camp, absolutely. Especially if human experiments are done on the inmates and torture is common.

I would not want my conditions to improve through slavery and torture of others. There is a big difference between you and me regarding that.

That's obvious, but there's not much the Crimeans could do to influence Putin. How would they have done that?

used that to show that the good the USSR did was outweighed by the bad.

Nope. I used it to show that it is possible that the good the USSR did was outweighed by the bad. That the concept exists. The Nazis are a warning example of what we must never become. It is super scary that it is not allowed to talk about them. In this case nothing like Nazis actions was under conversation, but sometimes things do look almost 1:1 the same as Germany looked in 1920's when the foundations for Nazism were laid and early 1930's. It is not good that it is considered Nazi apologia, because if we can't say aloud when things are going that way again, we will eventually end up Nazis ourselves.

I used to live in Germany, and it scared me that people there don't see that their way will eventually lead to rise of fascism again, no matter how understandable the principles behind the "do not compare anything to Nazis" rule is! When it comes again, Germans are not going to anything to stop it, and will stop anyone who does try to. Except, of course, if it uses the swastika. Then it will be stopped.

But, now back to the actual subject!

The Workers in the Soviet Union were not sent to camps to die en mass.

Correct, it was largely based on the ethnic background, not so much on social strata. For example Latvians were sent there in such amounts that now almost 50 % of Latvians speak Russian as their main language. It also does not really matter if they were sent there en mass or not, when several millions from around Soviet Union were sent there and 70 % of them died. Camps where millions are sent and less than a third come back alive is not something that can ever be considered acceptable. Camps where you put six people to sleep in a space built for one or two are not okay. It is not okay, it was not okay, and it never will be okay. And it is not okay to defend them.

Then there are some claims that you just let hanging in the air:

No, Finland did not achieve better metrics at a larger scale

I already explained that Finland [was between 1917 and 1991] Imperialist

Finland extract[ed] superprofits off of exploitation of the Global South [between 1917 and 1991].

You need to elaborate on those. I did alter the quotes, because in the context of comparing countries' growth 1917–1991 whatever happened after 1991 is not really relevant. The altered parts are marked clearly.

“ruling class” -- would have sucked at their job given that they dramatically lowered wealth inequality.

The job of the ruling class is not to maximize wealth inequality. They very often do that, yes, but it is not their job. Lowering wealth inequality is a sign of the ruling class is doing their job correctly, not incorrectly. I do not understand why you would think otherwise.

I'm not comparing them. I'm saying that doing something good does not mean that the instance that does the good is also good. The Nazis are simply the most extreme example that can be found, and therefore the most efficient way to show that the concept of "doing some good things does not automatically mean you're a good guy" exists in general.

They doubled life expectancy, over tripled literacy rates to 99.9% from the low 30s, dramatically reduced wealth inequality, provided free and high quality healthcare and education

And the only part of the Russia that did not become Soviet did the same things in an even bigger scale. Why?

Finland funds its safety nets through Imperialism.

The eastern block got money from Moscow through Warsaw pact. The western block got money from Marshall Aid. There was only one country in Europe that received neither: Finland. We were considered to be in the eastern block, so we were not allowed to get Marshall Aid. And USSR's aid required accepting that "if the country's independence is endangered, Moscow can choose to send its forces to help". We demanded a change to that rule so that Helsinki decides if the help is needed, not Moscow. And then Soviet Union said, "okay, no money for you people, then". Soviet Union got reparations from Germany and Finland. Finland paid all of its reparations, fully. The last payment was made in the 1990's. While being the only country not getting any money from foreign countries for rebuilding after the war, we also paid huge war reparations to the country that had begun the war in coöperation with Germany by attacking us in 1939. And yes, that does mean that the advances Soviet Union did after the second world war were partially financed by Finland. Which still managed to do better than Soviet Union it was helping. Could you please tell, how precisely does all this mean that Finland was funding its safety nets through imperialism? Was the Finnish imperialism visible in the huge decrease of Finno-Ugric population, from whose colonized territories Soviet Union got almost all of its oil and minerals? Or where did the Finnish imperialism physically take place?

Finland saw no such comparable devastation

During just three nights in 1940, Soviet Union dropped 16489 bombs in Helsinki alone. How is that not devastation? And of course those were only the most intense nights of bombing, there were of course maaany more of them between 1939 and 1944.

The Soviet Union existed for the workers.

The Soviet Union said that it exists for the workers. But the workers were who got sent to the camps to die, not the ruling class.

Why would it? Finland has a total army strength of quite precisely one million if you count in the reserve.

Ukraine has fielded about that many soldiers altogether, perhaps a little less.

Finland has a population of 5.6 million, Ukraine has a population of 40 million. Per capita they have about one seventh of the amount of soldiers compared to Finland. Meaning, they should be, by all logic, able to find another seven times as many soldiers as they have found now. It's weird that the do not!

While Ukrainians' will to go to front is far greater than that of Germans' or the French, the size of Ukraine's army tells of a big problem with motivation. It is super weird, but even under the current circumstances, most Ukrainians don't bother joining to help protect their country. (And because they don't, the current soldiers almost never get relieved for holidays, and that's a reason why people don't want to join the army...)

That is a self-correcting problem. If it happens that Ukraine runs out of soldiers so badly that the Russia will start advancing at a speed of five percent of Ukraine's total territory per year instead of the current 0.7 %, then Ukrainians will get scared and more people will be motivated to move their butts. And then there are enough soldiers again.

The Russia does not have such a self-correcting mechanism with its army size. Actually the opposite: While Ukraine doing badly will motivate more Ukrainians to come for help, the Russia doing badly means their economy is doing badly, and therefore their ability to pay good salaries for their soldiers will be doing badly. Their soldiers are in it for the money. No money --> extremely difficult to find enough Russian soldiers.

And the Russia will remain gaining ground at the same steady speed of 0.7 percent per year. In just 7 years, by 2032, they will already have conquered another one twentieth of Ukraine! Ura!

If the Russia keeps its ground gaining steady and does not increase its speed tenfold, then that means the Russia is doing seriously badly. Losing 400 000 soldiers in a year (as dead and wounded, not only dead!) and not managing to unsteady that rate of advance means things are seriously going badly!

He would have gotten the same by not voting. By not voting you are supporting the candidates that least want you to vote. Those who are the most harmful to you.

He could have gotten something different by voting for someone who was not against him.

At least over here in Finland there are several immigrants who are running for the communal elections through the anti-immigration party Perussuomalaiset. And they get voted by other immigrants. They are many. Remember, "many" does not mean the same as "most".

Anybody in Crimea knows that if you say Crimea is Ukraine, you will quite soon get beaten up seriously badly. A person cannot know whether you will rat him out or not, so It does not matter what he thinks – he will absolutely say that he supports the Russia. Practically everybody in Crimea will say that they do, no matter what they think.

A lot of Crimeans DID do the same. Why do you assume they didn't?

I don't think he can have. He knows Ukraine has been losing ground in Kursk. But he also understands that this is not really relevant at this point. The Russia has not been advancing in any noticeable manner since early 2022. (Okay, in 2024 they did gain 0.7 % percent of Ukraine's total territory in just one year, but I would not call gaining under one percent of a country's territory advancing, really)

It would be useful for Ukraine to remain in the Kursk area, but what can you do when all your warehouses' and military bases' locations in the area are suddenly known by your enemy? It's a huge task building new ones in different places, and one cannot do so in just a couple of days.

The Russia has not been gaining ground after early 2022. During the year 2024 they gained more ground than anybody in the west expected, because USA stopped its weapon deliveries for 6 months in the end of June 2024.

When the Russia gained ground exceptionally fast, it gained 0.7 % of Ukraine's total territory in that one year. Less than a percent. Okay, technically that is indeed gaining ground, but in the big picture of the war that's an irrelevant amount. If the Russia manages to gain 5 % of Ukraine's territory in 12 months, it's okay to say they are gaining ground. But with the speed they are "advancing" now... Heh.

The Russia gaining ground at a speed of 0.7 % of Ukraine's territory and losing 400 000 soldiers as dead and wounded per year in the process is indeed part of some grand plan of Ukraine's. The Russia won't run out of people with that pace for another 250 years or so, but it will run out of soldiers, because it is losing them faster than it's able to recruit new ones.

I don't think a refinery strike in the Russia has any effect on Hungary. Except by weakening Hungary's ally.

This strike has no effect on availability of crude oil in the Russia or elsewhere, but it does have an effect on availability of refined oil products within a certain, rather large, radius around the refinery.