Because it isn't unless you play competitive really. Since I generally hate sweaty online competitive games I don't really mind if frames are under 60 sometimes. The only online games I play are slower paced where a frame coming slightly quicker wouldn't be a huge advantage.
That's why I built a high end PC with a 144hz 1440p monitor.
Yes the Russian and Ukrainian military, both made of up actual people many of whom were conscripts, are both suffering heavy losses. That means lots of death. I don't see lots of death as being worth finding out the Russians overhyped their weapons.
Second tier military remarks are pretty surprising to me. I don't get why so many people seem shocked that a country that suffered a decade of basically mob rule and ruthless resource extraction by oligarchs after the collapse of the previous political entity doesn't match up to the last remaining superpower that has had no real war or massive disruption on its land since the American Civil War. Sure, in a peer to peer fight, which Russia against Ukraine is, Russia is not doing the equivalent of 'impressively' taking Baghdad in three weeks. It's a completely different war. And yes the corruption obviously plays a huge role in how underwhelming the Russian menace seems to western audiences. I'm not saying this as some massive Russia supporting spiel, I am just constantly surprised by this take.
I imagine in a cease fire before official peace talks both sides would reinforce unfortunately, that tends to be what happens and I'm under no illusion that it isn't. As to whether it would be acceptable to give up this land, it comes down to whatever is agreed to in the peace talks. I personally am all for giving up land if needed, especially land where there was a legitimate civil war happening before the Russian invasion, but it doesn't have to happen that way. Before the inevitable accusations of 'thats literally appeasement, Hitler, Chamberlain, 1939, etc' a podcast called Citations Needed has a good rundown on why that is an often dishonest framing for situations. Episode 89.
They also do a good episode on the idea of 'whataboutism' which I wish I had remembered earlier. Episode 66.
Obviously you don't need to agree with their takes, but it helps to put it into perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion around the Budapest agreement and the Minsk agreements on Lemmy already, so I won't go into that as others are more knowledgeable than me.
I'm not ignoring that, I explicitly stated that the Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the population is asking for aid. That doesn't mean the US isn't using them. There is also a large number of conscripts who are forced to fight, and were either prevented from leaving the country or some basically kidnapped. Those people would definitely benefit from a ceasefire and peace talks.
Using Ukraine to offload old weapon systems, fund the US military industrial complex, test weapons in a peer to peer scenario, and destroy Russia as much as possible through Ukrainian deaths rather than American. They are spinning it as a moral crusade to uphold democracy, just like they do in every other conflict they are involved in. The Ukrainian government and a vocal part of the Ukrainian people are calling for assistance, but also a large proportion of those fighting were conscripted against their will, which shows they do not want to fight. I don't think the fear of escalation is why new weapons are being withheld for so long, if it was they wouldn't be sent in the end. I feel it is just to keep Ukraine and Russia struggling on in stalemate, which devastates the country and leads to more and more death.
Indeed there are wishes and reality. I told you my wishes so you don't think I hope for some 'Ruzzian genocide of all Ukronazis' or something. The reality is a ceasefire and peace talks will save lives. That's why I advocate for it. Where it goes from there is up to Ukraine and Russia, but an all or nothing mentality does not seem to be working for either of them.
Most neighbours are in NATO now, except Ukraine obviously, and those aligned with Russia. I don't feel that two diametrically opposed blocs sharing a big border while propagandising against each other is very stable, especially when you factor in that Russian support apparently includes countries outside the local region, just as with Ukraine.
The fact that Hungary, a nation that is clearly under a right-wing, reactionary government, is a part of NATO shows how little those in NATO actually care for democratic rule. Also the alignment with the Saudis, and the propping up of Israel despite their constant crimes against the local Palestinians. I'm not saying Russia cares about democracy, the results of Yeltsin's rule have clearly crippled them on that front, along with Putin's never ending run. The point is to see that these are two powerful and primarily self interested blocs, and any time they start talk about how they are fighting for good it should raise some eyebrows at least.
Ok, I appreciate you taking the time to respond throughout this whole conversation. I think we disagree on a fundamental level about what difference socialism made to the former Russian Empire when taking into account the conditions of the country. I also think we disagree on how repressive western culture could and can be, and how damaging it can be to those who are not near the top of the pile, or to those who dare to challenge the status quo in any meaningful way, such as whistle blowers or groups like the Black Panthers.
I don't feel that newly independent countries rushing to join a stable alliance straight after the political collapse of their former country is that shocking, especially when paired with the fact that the majority of people within the Soviet Union voted to keep it intact in a referendum before the dissolution. Russia also wanted to join NATO, that doesn't mean the USSR wouldn't have been the better option for them.
I appreciate your in depth responses, but I think we are talking past each other or perhaps differing on the understanding of our points. I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.
The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel. It was not perfect, just as the USA is not perfect. However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.
The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.
I also differ in the opinion of whether Norway is socialist. I do not see it as such, instead I see it as a capitalist system with better welfare than some other states.
The person you replied to, saying whataboutism is a literal fallacy, brought up the fact that whenever anyone criticises the US in relation to current events it gets dismissed as whataboutism. I was making a point that hypocrisy in regards to the US, which is the most powerful nation in the world, helps no one, and only hinders the ability for governments to operate.
I'm not saying Ukrainians have no agency, although they are indebted to the west now, I am saying that the US is using Ukraine and spinning it as a moral good. The fact that it aligns with what the Ukrainian government wants is not necessary.
I don't support killing civilians. I don't support killing conscripted people. I don't support killing volunteers who joined because they were struggling in a system that is designed to entice the poor to fight. I don't even support killing those who joined because their mind is warped to hyper patriotism by propaganda due to the system they live in. I would rather see peace talks, collaboration in demining and rebuilding, and genuine interest in what the people of the region want. That Russia is seeking support is not surprising seeing the west supporting Ukraine, that doesn't make it right, that just makes it predictable.
Ok, so the West Germans and France, who received economic aid from the US who wasn't ravaged by war, fared better economically than those countries being supported by the Nazi devastated USSR.
I've heard first hand accounts from people from the west who talk about the only way to avoid disproportionate targeting by police and other state actors was to be not black or other minority. Not to mention the institutionalised corruption of over the top corporate lobbying. That's an absolutely fucked level of corruption too.
Of course people are happier now than at the fall of the USSR. The collapse of a nation has a massive and in this case negative instant impact on people's lives. The fact that things if gone up from there is not surprising.
Black people and Native Americans are still dealing with past and current displacement and discrimination, including a push to eliminate their culture and language. Canada is currently dealing with the results of their very recent genocidal attempts on their First Nations people.
That 'only a small number of people's argument really doesn't wash when you factor in the alternative that is capitalism. The very system that is increasing inequality faster and faster since the fall of its former main ideological enemy. It's true that light industry in the Soviet Union was underdeveloped, people didn't have as much choice in things like food products or consumer goods, but they were building from a completely different set of conditions. The ability of the west to produce so much that then gets wasted while still having starving, homeless, and undereducated people living in it is not a ringing endorsement of the system.
Bruh are you being willfully ignorant about that last point or do you legitimately believe I was saying Ukraine is the most powerful nation to ever exist?
Mali. The domain is free.
It shouldn't be surprising that prosperity advanced much more in the already advanced and industrialised west than in a former semi-feudal peasant economy country. The point is that that former semi-feudal peasant economy rose rapidly to become at least a perceived competitor to the west, even with the most destructive war ever waged on a large part of its most fertile and productive land.
Also, corruption and lying? That isn't specific to the USSR. People are and were miserable in the west too, cultural genocide was and is happening in the west too. Comparing like for like, socialism worked well for the USSR. It was able to heavily industrialise, house populations, create a space program and compete with the USA on the international stage.
Dismissing something for being a fallacy is also a fallacy. There are historical, political, social, and economic reasons things happen, and sometimes it pays to put things in context. Limiting the discussion to the thing happening NOW and only NOW doesn't allow for a better understanding of the events.
Also, someone pointing out hypocrisy of other nations shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, especially if it's pointing out the hypocrisy of the most powerful and influential nation to ever exist. You can see based on past events such as the war on terror and endless drone striking of civilians how governments could expect that to be the standard way of operating. That doesn't make it right, only that military intervention has been and continues to be legitimised politically by the international community.
Well, I’m not just hand-wringing about this particular conflict. We are in a thread about this conflict and I am trying to explain my viewpoint on why bringing up the warcrimes of the US and allies is not simply whataboutism.
I really don’t like how often I see people ok with the idea of nuclear war. I like Fallout as much as the next person but I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of nuclear apocalypse.
Ok, fair enough. But the achieving strategic objectives isn’t on the side, it’s the primary aim. People can see that and still support the US supporting Ukraine, but it seems so many people just think that the US are ‘the good guys’. They aren’t. No one is. The Ukrainian government aren’t the good guys, stopping people from leaving the country and forcing them to fight, and honouring Bandera and Azov. The Russian government aren’t the good guys, conscripting their own citizens to fight people they say are their brothers, and their denazifying rhetoric might have had some pull if they didn’t trade back those very Nazis after Azovstahl. The US government and the collective west aren’t the good guys, supplying just enough weaponry to keep Ukraine in the fight, then upping support when it looks bad.
Also, going back to my talk about precedents set by the USA, this sets a precedent for other countries to overtly arm, fund, train, and supply intelligence to their direct opponents in any if their future aggressive wars. If the counterargument to that is, ‘well, they can try, but we will fuck them up,’ then we are in might makes right territory, which is more or less how the US currently operates, but clearly not ideal.
You said the other commenter’s point seemed to be ‘because America did bad things we must let bad things happen’. That wasn’t their point, at least not to my reading of it. I read it as trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the international community, which usually means the USA and associated countries.
None of this is to excuse the war in Ukraine, but if the international community is to mean anything, and to have any legitimacy, it needs to apply the rules across the board. Since it doesn’t mean anything beyond what is good for the US/corporate interests, the rules have not, and will not be applied evenly.
The US is not trying to do the right thing, it is trying to advance it’s interests in the region at the expense of Russia, and unfortunately for Ukrainians at the expense of them too, even if it benefits Ukraine as a state. The fact that the US can wage so many destructive wars that are later acknowledged as mistakes and still be seen as trying to do the right thing shows how effective the propaganda arm of the country is.
No it didn’t level Baghdad or Kabul. It did level Fallujah. Russia hasn’t leveled Kyiv. It has leveled Mariupol.
It isn’t just the US, the issue is that it is all backed and supported by its allies, including my country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, not to mention the previous wars the international community has been involved in. There are still extrajudicial killings using drones, which would be considered terrorism if done the the US or allies.
No, it’s pointing out a precedent set by the USA and allies that wholesale slaughter of innocents is acceptable to the international community. Russia’s invasion, whether legitimate or not, is no more spurious in its reasons than so many of the USA’s ones over the last how ever many decades.
That doesn’t make this one right, it just points out that the “rules based order” is a falsehood. Otherwise every US president in recent to not so recent history would also have an arrest warrant out for them, and the US would be sanctioned into the ground.
I generally have a hard time believing the US intends to do good outside of padding the pockets of corporate lobbyists and politicians. I’m not a fan of the whole “until the last Ukrainian” war that’s happening either.
I feel like boltgun is probably the pinnacle of space marine games tbh. The description of space marines in universe just maps so neatly to a boomer shooter. That and rogue trader are probably the two perfect genres for their 40k topic
A good documentary, on the USSR though not modern Russia, is The Human Face of Russia. You can find it on YouTube. It's Australian as well so it's interesting seeing a look into the Soviet Union from the point of view of a country that is aligned with the US but without so much Red Scare propaganda.