Khepesh wrote:I can explain, sort of, but only in the form of a history lesson, so please excuse if this is essentially all known to you, and anybody else, which I am sure it is.Akula971 wrote:
What is this 'neo-slave holding system' that we are discussing here ?? I fail to see what has changed. Please someone help me out.
I admit that I had not heard this specific phrase used until Dubovoy used it a few days back. I presume he is saying that this became a war for business interests, not the people. It is of course possible to say that if some oligarch gets rich, then commerce is working and we all, or most of us, have jobs and increase our standard of living, essentially normal capitalism, something I am part of with all my shares in ventures in Siberia... However, the issue that some have seen is that of the existance of oligarchs, not of capitalism per se in some form. The west once had oligarchs, normally called plutocrats back in the days, the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers etc. These were like old style medieval barons and their workers bonded laborers, slaves in all but name, and with the ability to move from one "slave" owner to another, or none, but then have no work and your life will quickly slip down the sewer in societies with no safety net. Not all these oligarch/plutocrats were scum, but the philinthropists were rare. With the rise of socialism, in different forms, and trade unions, the plutocrats needed to fade into the background and change their ways. Today they still exist to an extent, Bill Gates was essentially a plutocrat, but not some "robber baron" stamping the peasants faces into the ground, and mostly today the very large corporations are not owned by one individual, but groups, hedge funds etc. In 1991 when the state collapsed a number of very unscrupulous individuals, mostly with crimminal minds, took the opprtunity to steal state property and become very powerful and rich, the oligarchs. Some still exist and live on the riches they stole, others have risen over the years from the swamp they invest, particulary in Ukraine, probably the most corrupt country in the world. The oligarchs control peoples lives, and politicians, to an extent that simply does not exist in other countries. They in fact have become the politicians, Poroshenko for example and there is no normal life, everything is owned by one or other oligarch, it is medieval, it is one of the truely bad things that was destroyed in the 1917 revolution and has returned with a vengence. Some in Donbass see what happens and have made the conclusion that this war became to preserve the business interests of oligarchs and their friends, at the expence of the blood of those who fight and the population. This is a point that of course can be debated, but the fact of the matter is that some fighters do see this as a war for oligarchs, Mozgovoi said so openly and paid the price, which rather suggests he was wcorrect, otherwise why kill him. Others, like Dubovoy, are now saying in public what they once kept to themselves. Also remember that a few months back "Rusych" returned to Russia saying they were sick of what was happening in Donbass, so, I wonder what they were sick of. That these are fighters who are saying these things should cause people, particulary on military networks, to pay attention. The rants of sofa warriors, me included, count as nothing to the words of those who have fought and been wounded. Anybody can disagree with them of course, that is normal, but the fighters have, IMO, moral superiority.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it brother, i appreciate that.
Well Rusych (the members were said to be 'neo-nazis' but they fought well) was under the control of RRG Batman and we all know what happened to Batman (god bless his soul). Dubovoy's argument is correct. The 2 sides were merely played against one another. Sparta has been turned into a recon battalion, reduced in manpower. Somali and Slon mixed (thats Givi AND Zakharchenko combined into one). The chechens went back home, havent heard anything about Vostok or the Don Cossacks. Anyone who could put up a fight either left ( See Strelkov), was pacified (see said battalions) or was exterminated (see Mozgovoi).
Well my personal take on this conflict is this :
Russia wanted their own guy safe in Ukraine - they bailed him out
Russia wanted to take Crimea - they took that out.
People of UKRAINE wanted to reject the current government - they called for help.
STRELKOV and the 300 volunters went to fight Ukraine (yup, ALL of Ukraine)
These people held their ground - Russian people grew sympathetic to these people.
NOW if these guys lost - Russia loses - Putin loses.
So then it became Russia's problem (PROBLEM not war).
Russia made sure that everyone played by their rules, they supplied weapons to NAF guys, along with training etc.
Ukraine's SSU ( i think thats how they are called), Russian spetsnaz were all in touch
Batman caught RuSpets doing shit in Novorossiya
Batman is killed.
Even today the people and soldiers are complaining that they lack the training to fight. You have people switching sides.
The dude from Sparta went to fight along side Azov.
Everyone who tried to take control of the situation (AFTER SLAVYANSK) has been killed or told to leave.
Russia didn't want a war in Ukraine, they just wanted people to forget all about it.
Now you have Syria, a quasi 'peace' in Ukraine.
Russia runs both sides, they wont go to war even if Parashko or Washington put a gun to their heads. And THIS is the nature of war.
In a way, yes - the people fighting the war have been betrayed.
Only now do these videos make more sense :
This is my understanding of these events - people MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE but something tells me, my stand and the stand made by many other people on this conflict is the same, including Dubovoys.