/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

<A senior Russian general was killed Tuesday by a bomb hidden in a scooter outside his apartment building in Moscow, a day after Ukraine’s security service leveled criminal charges against him.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-explosion-head-of-nuclear-defense-forces-killed-9656bce946a9f552454df9debe5fbd18
I love how the West is enabling Ukrainian terrorism. I'm sure this won't be a problem for Europe down the line…

>>486386
>accusation = death sentence
Justice at work in Ukraine.

Russia needs to annex all of Ukraine up until Lvov and Kiev, they can have those as "Ukraine". Russia would be stupid to stop now that they have the initiative and the momentum. They are advancing in 5-10 directions EVERY DAY. 30k+ volounteers a month for the RAF.

How long until Russia decapitates Ukrainian leadership? When will Putin have had enough? A few tactical nukes on the decision-making centres in Kiev and done.

>>486386
I wonder if this is bait to get the Russians to launch a decapitation strike to complicate potential peace negotiations next year.

> I'm sure this won't be a problem for Europe down the line
I would be more worried about the 30% of light weapons deliveries to Ukraine that disappeared into black markets. Does anybody know where those hand-grenades and shoulder-mounted rocket-launchers went ?


>>486387
>Justice at work in Ukraine.
Yeah i get the feeling that if Crete_Lover_419 "was Ukraine" he'd get shot while messing with a scooter

>Russia needs to annex all of Ukraine up until Lvov and Kiev,
More likely is that they will go after the Ukrainian secret service.

>How long until Russia decapitates Ukrainian leadership?
They obviously haven't done that because they still see a possibility to end this conflict with some kind of diplomatic resolution

>When will Putin have had enough? A few tactical nukes on the decision-making centres in Kiev and done.
Yeah but the Russians care what their friends think of them, like China and others, who wouldn't like the destabilizing effects. Also Ukraine kinda is in Russia's front yard, why would they take a radioactive shit in it ? If they decide to decapitate Ukraine they'll use their new toys like that Oreshnik.

>>486394
>why would they take a radioactive shit in it
Tactical nukes are different than what we think when we hear the word "nuke". There's no radioactive fallout, no lingering radiation.
>they'll use their new toys like that Oreshnik.
Oreshnik is designed to carry (tactical) nuclear warheads. So if they use Oreshnik, it will be a tac nuke strike.

>>486395
>Tactical nukes are different than what we think when we hear the word "nuke"
Nah "tactical" is just a marketing word. Like "pro-max" or "anniversary-edition". Words like that refer to differences just big enough that it matters to enthusiasts yet small enough that non-enthusiasts can't tell the difference.
>There's no radioactive fallout, no lingering radiation.
Lol nuclear-free nukes like sugar-free soda or alcohol-free beer.
It's high energy physics something's always getting irradiated.

>Oreshnik is designed to carry (tactical) nuclear warheads. So if they use Oreshnik, it will be a tac nuke strike.
The new feature of the Oreshnik are the kinetic warheads that can break something like a military base and create deterrence but do not cause nuclear escalation, unlike one of them tickle-nukes.

>>486397
>There's no radioactive fallout, no lingering radiation.
>Lol nuclear-free nukes like sugar-free soda or alcohol-free beer.
Nobody says it's "radiation-free". You're being radiated now, the sun emits UV radiation, your infrared remote sensor is radiation. Your oven heats via radiation.

I specifically said nuclear fallout. That is when the unstable particles go up into the atmosphere and are then brought down by rain. The radiation from the nuclear explosion itself doesn't linger very long (regardless of the size of the bomb).
>do not cause nuclear escalation, unlike one of them tickle-nukes.
US has already said that Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not trigger a nuclear response or war.

>>486398
>I specifically said nuclear fallout.
I know what you meant, i don't think you can detonate a nuke in a war context without creating fallout. Unless it's something like an underground test and even that is contentious. If you set off a nuke in a city it'll vaporize a bunch of stuff and that'll create irradiated dust. It'll also create a local weather phenomenon that will suck up more dust from the surrounding environment and that'll add to the mess. There is an unverified argument that lower yield nuclear explosions don't shove the nasty shit into the upper layers of the atmosphere and hence don't necessarily cause world-wide fallout. Even if that's true, there still are lots of weather phenomena that can transport particulates around the world. So what you get is a sliver of hope that it won't piss in everybody's aquarium. But even so using a nuke will rattle everybody's cage none the less.

>US has already said that Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not trigger a nuclear response or war.
The US used nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they sort of got away with it because there is a plausible case of ignorance about what that would do since it was a first. Obviously there is no more ignorance and using nukes a second time would be interpreted as extremely malicious. The US military however would like to have smaller "usable nukes" anyway, but they want the Russians to do it first so the epic nuclear shit-storm unloads on them instead. They speculate that once somebody else opens that door they'll be able to go too, while only catching a manageable amount of political flak for it.

The Russians have spoiled that plan by inventing the Oreshnik which is militarily as useful as a low yield nuke, without opening any nuclear doors.

>>486400
>There is an unverified argument that lower yield nuclear explosions don't shove the nasty shit into the upper layers of the atmosphere and hence don't necessarily cause world-wide fallout.
The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki did not generate a firestorm. Furthermore, the many atmospheric tests done before the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty exposed people downwind to fallout but not globally.

>>486404
The data from the cold war is not entirely conclusive, it allows for a range of possible interpretations. Why does this feel like you are trying to sell me on a nuclear strike ?

Where do you see the Russian motive for doing this ?
They have a new weapon that doesn't make a big mess, why wouldn't they use that ?

>>486398
>US has already said that Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not trigger a nuclear response or war.
That's a fucking stupid thing for any party to say.
"Yeah, you can wipe out an entire city in a single blast, but we draw the line at causing fall out!"

>>486406
If you think the US will start a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, I have a bridge to sell you.

>>486408
Not op. But if the ruskies are retarded enough to actually use a nuke in modern warfare. ESPECIALLY against a country they should have been able to trample without it. It'll just make them look even weaker than they already do, and it will unilaterally make every eurofag, and americunt band together to decry Russia's frozen shithole of a country.

It'd also probably be the selling point of European countries building up their own nuclear arsenal. And if you think the trade embargo's etc are rough now. Boy howdy would they ever ramp up.

But hey! Just nuke the embarrassment of a failed blitzkrieg away right?

>>486408
>That's a fucking stupid thing
>"Yeah, you can wipe out an entire city in a single blast, but we draw the line at causing fall out!"
I agree its a stupidyes that's a noun now. But there is a plausible logic behind this line of thinking. Imagine there's people who fancy installing a nuclear protection racket. They would want the ability to nuke a city that didn't pay protection money without affecting others that did pay. They would be really annoyed that nukes have so many side effects that render them useless for this purpose.

>>486408
>If you think the US will start a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, I have a bridge to sell you.
True the US doesn't care about Ukraine, they want to bully Russia into submission. There are some nutcases with fantasies about winning at a fictional contest they call a "limited nuclear war". Nobody with any sense believes that once the nuke-train leaves the station anybody can put the breaks on it.

>>486410
The hole thing in Ukraine was a proxy war. The Russians won the attrition contest against Nato. They also neutralized sanctions as a weapon that can be used against their economy.

>It'd also probably be the selling point of European countries building up their own nuclear arsenal. And if you think the trade embargo's etc are rough now. Boy howdy would they ever ramp up.
Europeans look at sanctions as suicidal folly if they have any sense. As far as weapons go, nukes are an OK deterrent, but those new "hyper-kinetics" are the better choice imho. You probably can have hundreds or thousands of impactors on a larger inter continental type. It'll be a cheaper way to achieve strategical deterrence without any of the doomsday bullshit. Considering that these likely will just sit there for decades, there's no contamination risk, and the maintenance is easier, just some upkeep for the rocket-motors.

They are really doubling down hard on this North Korean narrative. This is without a doubt the stupidest fucking neocon war propaganda of all time and I can't believe they're going even harder on the narrative. North Korean troops, North Korean missiles, Russians only advancing due to all this North Korean assistance, etc. Is this just a test to see how stupid the public really is? Because this is really fucking stupid.

>>486517
>They are really doubling down hard on this North Korean narrative. This is without a doubt the stupidest fucking neocon war propaganda of all time
Yeah it's a really bad look, a Nato proxy getting defeated by imaginary North Koreans.

>North Korean troops, North Korean missiles, Russians only advancing due to all this North Korean assistance, etc. Is this just a test to see how stupid the public really is? Because this is really fucking stupid.
There was a coup attempt in South Korea, maybe the "North Korean menace" propaganda angle was supposed to get linked to that as well. But since the coup only lasted for about 4h, that didn't really pan out, and now that propaganda narrative appears even more loony.

Trump attempted rapprochement with North Korea, maybe that plays a role too.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/12/democracy-dies-in-the-eu-romania-edition.html


Democracy Dies in the EU: Romania Edition
Posted on December 25, 2024 by Conor Gallagher

>If you were hoping this Christmas for more clarity on the rules of the “rules-based international order,” you’re in luck. Recent events in Romania provide plenty. Judges there canceled the results of the recent election in Romania because a candidate who favored better ties with Russia won. The decision was based on bogus intel from the state intelligence services, and naturally Brussels and Washington backed the move. While the EU has for years used all sorts of pressure and threats to get member states to continue to support Project Ukraine, the overturning of the election in Romania marks a clear escalation of tactics and is likely a harbinger of what’s to come.

>Let’s start with a timeline of events in Romania and then look at why the country is so important to NATO Black Sea plans, as well as the larger significance of the election cancellation. I’ll be focusing primarily on the involvement of actors outside Romania as I’m not all that familiar with the country’s political scene, but I think we have at least a few experts in the commentariat who can hopefully offer more domestic perspective.

>imagine telling people you're a paid shill
>imagine upvoting it
but remember, it is the Russian bots that are controlling the narrative!!

>>486551
I don't know anything about Romanian politics so all I can say is speculative. But it does indeed look like a neocon-coup trying to sacrifice another country.

By the way the only way to contest an election is via referendum. Neither intelligence services nor judges stand above The People. If you think the elected representatives are not genuine, you can ask people directly. Since afaik that hasn't happened it does look like a coup attempt.

If this is part of "project Ukraine" it could be an act of desperation, because that campaign is all but lost. And the likely result would be Romania getting destabilized for a short while. One of the nice features of democracy is that when political power changes hands it happens without bloodshed, that's probably what's at stake here.

There are reports that Russian air defenses shot down an Azerbaijani passenger plane.

Per BBC,
Azerbaijan's transport minister has said the Azerbaijan Airlines plane that crashed on 25 December was subjected to "external interference" and damaged inside and out, as it tried to land in Russia's southern republic of Chechnya.

"All [the survivors] without exception stated they heard three blast sounds when the aircraft was above Grozny," said Rashad Nabiyev.

The plane is thought to have come under fire from Russian air defence systems before being diverted across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, where it crashed with the loss of 38 lives.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4717j21kko

>>486578
>One of the nice features of democracy is that when political power changes hands it happens without bloodshed, that's probably what's at stake here.
What about parliamentary electoral oligarchies though?

>>486581
>What about parliamentary electoral oligarchies though?
Not sure how you define those.

But if you compare politically unstable capitalist countries, that have "rough politics" they still have much smoother power transitions than what went down in feudal power-struggles when 30 year civil wars weren't that unusual.

no comment

>>486582
All electoral republics are oligarchies. You cannot have democracy with elections, they are an institution for rule by the few.

>>486583
I don't get it.

Are they making this up ? Did they never capture the north Korean in the first place or what ?

>>486584
Sort of agree with you.

Electoral democracies often require political parties to engage in expensive election campaigns and that creates a barrier to entry, that excludes most people. And some election systems bifurcate into 2 party states that relentlessly reinforce the status quo against the will of the people.

However shitty these are it's still more democratic than feudal Kings.

If you delve deep into electoral math and look at how many votes the people who end up in power actually got, it's usually not that representative. There was some French guy who lived during the days of the French revolution who did statistical distribution analysis for all possible electoral systems, and he concluded that it was almost impossible to make a voting system that had good representation from a statistical point of view.

So if you want to argue that representative sampling election by lot (also known as sortition or Athenian democracy) is probably the most democratic system we could make. I agree with you.

I conceptualize democracy not as on or off but on a range measured as more or less democratic. Many bourgeois democracies that capitalism has brought about only get a low score on this, but they do still count as democracy. Because again look at how terrible feudal systems used to be.

If you define democracy to be rule by the many, or rule by the poor as Aristotle worded it. Then you are correct that there are hardly any democracies.

>>486590
Any real democracy would see capitalism abolished overnight, because the masses have low tolerance for class rule. That's why the form of government chosen to manage capitalism is the electoral oligarchy. It give the illusion of public choice, the pretense of popular rule, when in fact the demos is merely choosing from a small stratum of rulers.

>If you delve deep into electoral math and look at how many votes the people who end up in power actually got, it's usually not that representative. There was some French guy who lived during the days of the French revolution who did statistical distribution analysis for all possible electoral systems, and he concluded that it was almost impossible to make a voting system that had good representation from a statistical point of view.
This area is actually my subject of expertise. Statistics was a pretty nascent discipline at that time, but you're probably thinking of the Marquis de Condorcet. He was basically the first person to initiate the science of voting method analysis in his discovery that many winner selection algorithms can fail to select the "Condorcet Winner" (choice beats all other options in pair-wise comparisons) when it exists even though they may have the ranked information to do so.

It wasn't until the mid-20th century that people started to do the mathematical proofs and statistical work to make the kinds of sweeping generalized statements about voting methods that you're thinking of. The most (in)famous one is Arrow's Theorem, which basically states that all voting methods involving a ranked ballot will have some kind of undesirable encouraging tactical voting.

>However shitty these are it's still more democratic than feudal Kings.
Fun fact: in parts of central Europe there actually was often democratic self-rule at a local level when deciding on things beyond the purview of their feudal lord. In some instances this even included substantial participation by women in democratic assemblies. In some sense the French Revolution and the revolutions of 1848 can actually be seen as a step backward in democratic rule because they replaced these local democratic assemblies with oligarchic elected bodies, not to mention only including males in suffrage.

>>486590
>they do still count as democracy
They count as democracy as much as ancient electoral oligarchies like Rome did: namely they fucking don't. Even the most duplicitous Roman authors like Cicero (whom Engels called "the worst scoundrel in history") never had the audacity to refer to their electoral system as "democratic". Why? Because they fucking knew better than to call it that, actually living at a time when democracies could be found throughout the Mediterranean. In fact for two thousand years after the death of Aristotle anyone familiar with that term also knew better. It wasn't until the American and French revolutions that some aspiring aristocrats popped up who found it politically useful to refer to the model that was historically the rival of ancient democracies as akshually that's democracy. Reject the Orwellian propaganda of the 19th century anon, it will liberate your thinking on governance.

>>486593
>Any real democracy would see capitalism abolished overnight, because the masses have low tolerance for class rule.
True, although probably not over night, i think capitalism would be slowly reformed away, like over the span of a few decades. Like when Wall-street crashed global finance, they would get reformed, when other sectors pulled some bullshit of their own they would get reformed as well. Over time …

>>486589
Of course they're making it up. They took pictures with an Asian-looking dead soldier in a Russian uniform. Russia has Asian-looking people in its army since Russia is geographically mostly in Asia.

They're really laying it on thick…

Tens of thousands of North Koreans fighing in Kursk… hundreds dead… but none captured, why? oH ueaj, that's right, they're all committing suicide to spite the Ukrops! Those dastardly Norks!!
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/12/28/7491084/

>>486621
Admittedly, it'd be more interesting if it's true.

>>486622
that doesn't make it true, though. if DPRK soldiers really were fighting Ukraine, we'd get more proof than a few blurry photos of dead bodies

>>486623
what we learned from the media is that all people in the DPRK have the Kim Yong Un hair cut, so they should be easily identifiable.
Also since everybody in the DPRK has starved to death several times over by now, they must have necromancer technology and their soldiers can't die. Also they have plastic weed and corn fields which means they must be able to digest plastic. So the undead guy with a distinctive hair-cut that's chomping down on plastic with gusto, that's the DPRK guy.

>>486621
>the sins I committed
How the fuck would north koreans know about the concept of sins? When religious uyghurshit was supposedly prohibited.

Never one to shy away from an opportunity for PR and self-promotion, World Famous Actor Volodymyr Zelensky sat down for three hours with Youtube interviewer Lex Fridman today. The frontlines collapsing all around, the Russian military making enormous territorial gains over the last several weeks, Zelensky himself preparing to give into Western demands and send 18-year-old Ukrainians to their deaths… This is quite an interesting time to be hobnobbing with e-celebs. What's this all about? Is Zelensky trying to sweeten up his popular image with the Western public to garner sympathy for his imminent escape from Ukraine?

>>486765
Ukraine just killed a battalion of North Koreans in 48 hours.
https://united24media.com/latest-news/zelenskyy-russia-loses-entire-north-korean-battalion-in-kursk-within-48-hours-4882
Crimea Beach Party 2025! Moscow by Christmas!

>>486765
I'm not masochistic enough to listen to a Zelesnskyy-ramble. Id say Chances of him getting out alive are slim. Converting teenagers into cannon fodder just to buy a few weeks of time is really macabre.

>>486768
This one's great too:
https://united24media.com/latest-news/zelenskyy-russia-burns-faces-of-north-korean-soldiers-to-conceal-their-identity-4889

I like how they'll brazenly admit to war crimes–mutilating the dead, a war crime under the Rome Statute of the ICC treaty that Ukraine signed–to facilitate their ridiculous war propaganda.

>>486765
>the Russian military making enormous territorial gains over the last several weeks
Elaborate on this?

The Guardian is so shameless holy fuck lmao.

>>486824
Maybe the guardian went to shit, but it could also be a violation of pressfreedom. As in journalists getting coerced to spew war propaganda.

Maybe we need to enhance the leverage of journalists to resist coercion. We could grant journalists the right to shoot anybody who tries to lean on them to skew their coverage. And include a few armed combat lessons in journalism school. It probably wouldn't solve the problem entirely but it would raise the difficulty of subjugating the media to the whims of warmongerers.

>>486776
>In 2023, they lost a total of about 540 sq km and liberated about 430 sq km.
Surprised to see that language from Pravda not complaining though.

>>486828
They're referring to the UA forces. In the title, Russians "seize" territory.

>>486899
Yeah, I got that, I just assumed it was Russian Pravda at first, hence why I was surprised. I didn't see the .ua after the .com. It would be weird if Russian Pravda phrased things this way.

>>486899
Does the language game pay off ? As in, is it really worth it to call governments one doesn't like "regimes" or like in this case say "seize" instead of "liberate".

Are we doing it wrong by not calling Ukraine "the democracy abandoned Bandarist neocon backed regime" or something like that ?

>>486901
… I mean, personally, "seized" and "liberate" are both perfectly accurate in this case. Like, I don't see that as particularly propagandistic - Ukraine objectively has a better claim to that territory than Russia does. Russia's best claim for reason to be there is security concerns, and that still doesn't entitle them, legally, to control of the territory or anything like that. I wouldn't even have commented on it at all if I hadn't mistakenly thought that the linked article was from regular Pravda instead of Ukraine's Pravda. It would be weird if Russian Pravda wrote it that way, but it would be weird if Ukrainian Pravda didn't.

>>486908
>I mean, personally, "seized" and "liberate" are both perfectly accurate in this case. Like, I don't see that as particularly propagandistic
Clearly these words are not synonymous, but i can't really be bothered to pick this apart.

>Ukraine objectively has a better claim to that territory than Russia does.
The Russians did a referendum, and while you can criticize that on the basis that it did not include people who fled the war, or that it was held while the Russian military was present, it's still more democratic than Ukraine's abolished elections. Technically Ukraine doesn't have a government until they hold elections.

>Russia's best claim for reason to be there is security concerns, and that still doesn't entitle them, legally, to control of the territory
The US invaded Ukraine via a covert war, you know the CIA arming and training groups like Azov. I don't know enough about international law to say for sure, but i think the Russians can claim that this was the US attempting to mass forces on Russia's boarders which technically is an act of war.

I think that it's pure ideological distortion to say this was a war between Ukraine and Russia. Nato poured so many weapons into Ukraine that it would best be described as a Russia-NATO proxy war. International law prohibits proxy wars too, so not sure where that leaves this.

Then there is the matter that some regions of formerly east Ukraine declared independence from Ukraine, that is something people can do. Democratic self determination and all that jazz. Lets not forget that the Ukrainian government was doing heavy discriminating against some parts of the population. You can only claim governance over people that are enfranchised. But wait there is more. At some point the Ukrainian military began shelling residential areas, they claimed to be part of Ukraine. I'm sorry but I don't really see how that tracks. I think that's the point when Kiefv relinquished it's claims. Governance by artillery that's not really a thing.

My preference was east Ukraine becoming a new country, instead of this war. The western governments would have needed to officially recognize it for that to happen. So i do get why this is fantasy-land.

The neocon approach to international law seems to be might makes right, in that sense Russia proved to have more might.

You have to understand where i'm coming from, I'm not willing to entertain a narrative that legitimizes neocon policy, i see that as a matter of principle equivalent to international law. The neocons are universal wreckers that seek to undermine organized human society. What they have been doing is destabilizing the US and Europe too, Russia is not their only target. When you looked at the legal dimension of the Ukraine war without any of the context, you triggered my "neocon narrative alarm neuron".