I love when people claiming to be communists defend the hyper capitalist modern Russia. I have my criticisms of the ussr, but it’s dead and buried and Russia is as much the Russian Soviet as the Russian Soviet was Czarist Russia.
That shit kills me. I was reading something on hexbear about some recent anti-gay stuff in Russia. It was all about critical support, and not just Russia. They also talked about critical support for Nigeria, despite them having the death penalty for gay people, because they’re “anti-imperialist.”
Why doesn’t it go the other way? Why can’t you give “critical support” to countries making strides in human rights while criticizing their economic policy?
To me, their priorities seem pretty fucked up. Between exploitative economic policy and killing or imprisoning people for existing as themselves, I know which one I’m going to be “critical” of and which one will cause me to refuse support for a country in any way.
Worst part is, it's not "or". For the countries they 'critically support', it's exploitative economic policy AND killing or imprisoning people for existing.
Tankies don’t have anyone they can root for that’s coherently communist or socialist anyways. China isn’t really, Russia is just an oligopoly with one guy on top for life (if you substitute land ownership with ownership of sectors of the economy then Russia looks a lot like a feudal monarchy).
Their one immutable belief is the “US bad”. That’s it. That’s their speed of light. Everything else must twist to maintain that position. If Ukraine elected a pro-western leader, it MUST be a CIA coup. They couldn’t have possibly chosen that for themselves because “US bad”. If Russia starts an offensive war of conquest it can’t just be their fault, they must have been provoked.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine they could pretend like only evil capitalist countries invade others. The invasion broke them since they have to someone maintain that position while also justifying the invasion , again, because US bad. This is really all they have now.
So, here’s how US bad: the US for several years has been provoking Russia by inviting Ukraine into NATO with no actual intent on letting them in. We’ve used them to offload massive stockpiles of old military equipment and secured all rebuilding of Ukraine to US companies. As soon as the Ukrainians start advancing, the US begins to fail on its commitments.
It’s possible to center ones ideals around the US being bad while also believing that Russia is bad.
Akshually, Ukrainians want to join the EU, not NATO. If you don’t believe me, look up the survey prior to 2014/2015 on how many want to join NATO and EU. You will find that majority of Ukrainians do not want to join the alliance but it’s completely opposite for the latter. The yearning by Ukrainians to join NATO changed overnight after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Gee, I wonder why?
NATO=/= EU. They are two completely different things! That’s like Ireland being attacked by Russia for being in the EU even though majority of Irish abhor NATO! Equating the two organisations is part of Russian propaganda. Because for the Russians, a sovereign country not aligning to them economically is the same as opposing them militarily.
It’s a blindspot among Westerners to refuse seeing the Russian mindset. They have their own worldview that is alien to the West and vice versa. The Russians have Eurasianist worldview where the center of the world and power is Asia; and their country carving a huge piece of that pie. Even oppositions of ruling government-- from communist to Putin era-- are hard-core nationalists as well from Alexander Solzhenytsin to Alexey Navalny. They are poster boy of Russian opposition from their respective time and yet believe Russia should also go its own way. They might be more liberal minded Russians, but they are nationalist first and foremost, and Eurasianists at that.
So, with that in mind, for the Russians, Ukraine and Georgia joining the EU-- a socio-economic bloc-- is unacceptable and tantamount to joining NATO; even though the fucking majority of Ukrainians and Georgians do not want to join NATO until further Russian provocations, brought by Russian siege mentality, pushed those countries to crave to join NATO. If Putin does not want NATO expansion, he certainly pushed two more countries to join, namely Finland and Sweden. Even Alexey Navalny-- Putin’s main presidential opponent-- said of the current president as the worst in geopolitics for having just provoked more countries to join NATO if the intention is to prevent its expansion. Those who says otherwise and keep harping about West provoking Ukraine to join NATO is Russian propaganda, because from the latter’s pov, either Ukraine signs a deal with them economically, or it means opposing them existentially too. Because Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence.
What the people say in polls is not important. The US has been threatening to let Ukraine into NATO for years, the leadership in Ukraine wanted to be in NATO (cuz leaders in countries often don’t follow what the people want) and Russia used the threat of an application to NATO along with other reasons to constitute invasion. Which, btw, Ukraine applied for NATO status in September of 2022, so your feelings are invalid.
I’m well aware of how the Russian oligarch mindset is. But this is a war that both Russia and the US have wanted and instigated for a very very very long time. It’s also within the US’s best interest to keep this war going on as long as possible and turn it into the next Afghanistan if it yields enough profit. Not everything that paints the US as bad guys is Russian propaganda. Remember, US bad AND Russia bad.
What the people say in polls is not important. The US has been threatening to let Ukraine into NATO for years, the leadership in Ukraine wanted to be in NATO (cuz leaders in countries often don’t follow what the people want)
Do you have a source?
Why does public opinion not matter when the whole ordeal started when the Yanukovych reneged on the deal with the EU causing a revolution to overthrow him in 2014?
Convenient line you have tried to take haven’t you?
Which, btw, Ukraine applied for NATO status in September of 2022, so your feelings are invalid.
Why would Ukraine not apply after being invaded since 2015 after Crimean annexation? If you are not wilfully ignoring what I said said, Ukraine did not want to join NATO until Russia invaded Crimea with insignia-less “green men”.
And cut the crap with faux centrist bs about BoTh SiDeS BaD with respect to Ukraine. In spite of saying both sides are bad, it is very telling that much of your criticism seems to be more against Ukraine and West and almost zero criticism of what Russia did wrong. This is nothing but serving Russian propaganda.
No one could ever produce substantial evidence of Americans or the West goading Ukraine to join them when asked for proof. Recently declassified conversation from the Blair era were well aware that Ukraine joining the EU might “provoke” the Russians and questioned whether or not Ukrainians are “European” enough to join the EU. The West also were friendly with Putin before, to which the Ukrainian government at the time thought the West had “too rosy view” of Putin. It is very telling after all that countries not in NATO somehow have separatist movements aligned with Russia, namely in Georgia, Transnistria and Ukraine. Meanwhile, NATO-member Baltic states with significant Russian population somehow aren’t clamouring for Russian influence. Not very telling at all!
The blame is squarely on Kremlin with their own siege mentality and jingoism. If you actually know how Russian mindset works as you claim, you’d acknowledge that. There is no reason for Russia not to be friendly with the West while still pursuing their own geopolitical interests. France always go their own way despite being a NATO member. India plays both the West and Russia and China. Russia could do the same but instead, they’re stuck in the 19th century, dog eat dog, brute imperialist mindset and wants their way or no way at all.
India always has military exercises with NATO too. Does that mean they will join NATO? Conversely, India also conducts military exercises with China and Russia. Does that mean India and China and Russia are military allies?
Military exercises and talks do not always mean formal alliance. Sure, governments on many occasions do not follow the will of the people. But there are lines that they won’t cross if enough people do protests. It is political suicide in Ireland for any politicians to demand joining NATO. And as was the same case in Ukraine before until the Russian invasion.
That all being said, why is it Russia’s business whom Ukraine chooses to have close military relationship with? Since India have closer military relationship with Russia, with India being the biggest buyer of Russian arms and regular partner in joint exercises, would you say that the United States have the right to antagonise India because of this, in the same way that Ukraine has close military relationship with NATO?
The problem is that people think in the socially constructed current paradigm of nation state model and great power game. Why is it any business of the bigger neighbours what the small country choose to be friendly with? But I suppose no one really cares about small countries having innate sovereign right to exercise their agency. The concerns of a bigger power like Russia’s is always more important, am I right?
As a matter of fact, Russia, India, and China are allies. It’s called The BRICS. Ireland is many miles away and didn’t used to be part of Russia, Ukraine is that. The US has a long history with antagonizing India, it’s a little country called Pakistan.
Your problem is that when presented with facts you refuse to accept them. Maybe take a moment to realize that the world as you know it isn’t quite how it seems. You can’t say Ukraine was never interested in joining NATO and then disregard and deflect the moment you’re proven wrong.
As a matter of fact, Russia, India, and China are allies. It’s called The BRICS.
Your problem is that when presented with facts you refuse to accept them
Except it’s not an alliance nor a formal organisation with the same political relevance, legal weight and structure as NATO, Mercosur or the EU? China isn’t even providing military hardware to Russia and to support them in Ukraine.
You’re talking about facts but could not even get the simple facts lol. Come back when you stop projecting.
Ireland is many miles away and didn’t used to be part of Russia, Ukraine is that.
So you think Ukraine should not have split from Russia? Are you ignoring the past amicable split of Ukraine from Russia after the fall of Soviet Union, during which both parties signed to recognise each others sovereignty? Because you’re telling me and any readers that Ukraine should not be have exercised their own agency in foreign policy. Are you blaming them for wanting to be closer to the West? You are victim blaming and denying the agency of others, aren’t you?
When asked what the US thinks of joint Russian and Indian military exercises, the Pentagon said India could do military drills with whomever they want. That’s the fact, you’re not supposed to deny other countries to pursue their own agency and policies. This is what Russia and their trolls and vatniks are doing instead.
The US has a long history with antagonizing India, it’s a little country called Pakistan.
Well, is India fighting the US because of it? Are they having diplomatic row or war? Why does the US navy still conduct military exercise with the Indian navy then when the latter doesn’t do so with Russia and China?
The Brics is absolutely a formal organization because it’s a trade agreement across over half of all global production.
China is staying out of the fight
I don’t know what simple fact you’re referring to
I’m not saying that Ukraine shouldn’t have formed its independence, I’m simply trying to educate you on geopolitics
I also don’t support the invasion of Ukraine at all, something you decided to makeup for some reason
I’ve only ever been trying to educate you about the state of this proxy war designed to generate profit for the US, generate geopolitical power for Russia, and exploit the ever living shit out of Ukraine. The US turning Ukraine into it’s next colony by making sure it controls every aspect of Ukraine’s economy and land rights. By fighting off the Bear they’re selling their lives away to the stars and stripes. You applaud as the US puts Ukraine in chains.
I only see Ukraine coming out ahead if it cedes land to Russia. They’re very certainly not going to win. They can’t afford to continue to fight Russia forever. Their pride is digging them a hole they won’t get out of. *Quit with the pedantic bullshit.
BRICS is not a trade agreement, lol. It’s like the G groupings such as G20 and G7, who just convene and talk but have little to no substantive legal weight. Some members may have trade agreements with each other, but not everyone trade each other with the same rules under BRICS, unlike Mercosur or the EU that are objectively economic bloc with legally binding rules. Because BRICS is neither a treaty organisation that have shared sovereignty, like the EU, nor a military alliance like the NATO. Brazil is even indifferent to Russian invasion of Ukraine, while China is not providing arms to Russia but provides limited finance. How does BRICS sound like an alliance to you? Show me the charter stating they’re a formal alliance or an economic bloc.
I’m not saying that Ukraine shouldn’t have formed its independence, I’m simply trying to educate you on geopolitics I also don’t support the invasion of Ukraine at all, something you decided to makeup for some reason
You know what they say: it’s more like what is not said than what is said. It’s very telling though that your vocal criticism is more directed to Ukraine and US, but there is no explicit and equal criticism of Russia. I’ve seen this play out with by pseudo-centrist nonsense serving Russian propaganda (or to any other authoritarian countries). Criticise US for using Ukraine, but faux centrists never or say little anything about Russia fomenting Russian-separatism. It’s very suspicious that, somehow, countries that are non-NATO and have substantial Russian-speakers have separatist sentiment. Meanwhile, NATO-members with many Russian-speakers aren’t getting separatist sentiment. Coincidence? You tell me.
I only see Ukraine coming out ahead if it cedes land to Russia.
And this presents the problem that encouraging to do so, you’re enabling the UN charter to uphold national sovereignty and respecting another country’s border to be completely thrown away. This is the problem with ill-informed centrist view on the war in Ukraine, if it’s not a vatnik or troll take. Just ignore the legalities. Assuming you’re an American, if in a hypothetical scenario Texas was invaded by Mexico as they used to own it, and that part was having trouble to be retaken by your army, would you say to just throw in the towel? Ignore the national sovereignty? US and Mexico signed treaty to cede Texas to US. Ukraine and Russia signed treaty to respect each other’s independence. You will allow all the legal proceedings to be completely quashed? Enabling to set precedence to illegal invasions?
You know what, you’re right. Ukraine should just expend all their resources until they’re so weak they can’t hold back the Russian military at all and the entire country should be conquered. Or they can win and become a US puppet state. Both solutions are better than losing a small amount of land that they’ve been shelling since 2012 and where most of the population is unhappy with how they’re living. Also, fuck Crimea, they shouldn’t have fresh water either. Give that land back to Ukraine so they can dam the only water supply to the region. As long as the US state department makes all the money, I don’t give a fuck what happens. I hope they all fight til they’re dead or in chains. Slava Ukraini!
If you what you claimed before that you know the Russian mindset, then you should already have known Russia will just use the lull period to attack again. There were those who are naive or missing the big picture by advocating to make peace and concessions with Hitler before. Just saying.
More will lose than just land by making peace with Putin. Nice spin though with pushing the narrative of military industry complex and Pentagon benefiting (duh), except supporting Ukraine is a just war. But as I suspected, you still are not calling out Russian elite benefiting from the war but only demonise the US. If what I heard is true, Russian elites raked in millions from the conflict. I don’t hear you specifically call out Russia if you truly are “enlightened centrist”
First off, no matter how much you hate Putin, he’s not Hitler. The Russian mindset is very simple, it’s basically just apply the US mindset to them but less efficient. It’s the standard capitalist imperialist mindset. And I’m not saying anything bad about Russia because it’s not necessary for this conversation. You already know why Russia’s bad so it would be redundant. I’m not a centrist at all either. I’m a leftist. Real far leftist. Like, the farthest left you get.
First off, no matter how much you hate Putin, he’s not Hitler.
No, but they both lied about not having plans to invade another country, and then did so after some days.
And I’m not saying anything bad about Russia because it’s not necessary for this conversation.
And yet you kept harping about Ukraine being goaded to join NATO without palpable evidence. Russia is the one who keeps provoking Ukraine, prompting the latter to demand accession to NATO after the annexation of Crimea.
I’m a leftist. Real far leftist. Like, the farthest left you get.
With all that being said, you’re the person this meme pokes fun at.
Oh, so you never read that link I sent. Here, I’ll send it again: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relationsIt’s literally been going on since the collapse of the Soviet Union. As for Russia invading multiple countries, that hasn’t happened. The last country they invaded before Ukraine was Georgia in 2008. So no, they haven’t done a Hitler. This is the problem with getting all your history lessons from memes.
Being anti-imperialist is usually the determining factor of tankie (“critical”) support. Being against the US is apparently how you are anti-imperialist, so if you decide to conquer an American ally to grow an empire, you are apparently anti-imperialist. I guess that’s where you “critically” support them by cheering.
In Germany the Left has been divided into Antiimps (Antiimperialists) and Antideutsche (Antigermans) since the 90s. Antiimps being pro Palestine, Anti-USA, western Imperialism, NATO etc… and Antideutsche being pro Israel, pro USA and against a united (or any kind of) Germany.
Of course those positions developed over the years, but they still explain where and how those ‘new’ perspectives came to be. Worth to read into it.
No. Most of the civilian populations don’t want it. They’re the victims caught in the middle between the fascist Netanyahu government and the Hamas terrorists.
The civilian population doesn't deserve it, but I'm not convinced that they don't want to murder the other side. Israeli polls on whether Palestinians should be treated as human beings often return... concerning percentages.
It’s not clear to me that the civilian population of Israel doesn’t want what is happening.
They’re the only people on the planet who can simply decide that things should be some other way, and then they would be that other way.
At some level, the Israeli people want it support the destruction of the Palestinian people, otherwise this would end. They need to take some responsibility for the government they allow.
No one that I know of from the West has tried for compromise in Palestine since the 1990s. The sign should say "We stand with Israel! Here's some weapons." Biden putting sanctions on like 4 people somehow counts as this revolutionary sign of progress, and they're still in the middle of blowing up the last of the medical facilities.
Don’t forget that Biden’s “targeting” Israeli settlers as if they give a fuck what some old guy in America thinks. The sanctions will make fuck all of a difference.
(https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html):
RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there.
Also, "encroaching on Russia" is not the same as expanding eastward, unless Russia claims that those eastward countries are not independent, and instead Russian satellites (Like Belarus). With which, obviously, those countries and the world disagree.
It was something the west told them wouldnt happen. And yet we continued to do it year after year even though it is an agression toward russia. We knew this was an agression against russia but did it anyways.
Okay, but the agreement/understanding is that NATO would not go any farther east, and Russia has been yelling about it for decades. How is it not encroachment and aggression when an organization that was started to be a counter that area keeps moving to the east?
Later, in its February 13 press release sent to embassies, the US State Department indicated that "the Secretary of State made it clear that the US supports a united Germany in NATO, but is ready to ensure that NATO's military presence will not expand further to the east."[31][12]
Baker's assurances were echoed by a number of other officials. So, on February 9, 1990, a similar guarantee (a united Germany "linked to NATO" but provided that "NATO troops will not go further east than they are located") was offered by Robert Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser to the US President, in his conversation with the head of the KGB of the USSR, Vladimir Kryuchkov,[32] and he described it as "an impressive offer"; this allowed us to speak of broader support for such than is claimed in a number of works, and conflicts with subsequent statements about the "speculative" nature of the statements.[12][29] On February 10, 1990, negotiations took place between the Soviet and West German sides, at which German Chancellor Kohl[19][33][34][28] and German Foreign Minister Genscher gave assurances about the non-expansion of NATO, assuring Shevardnadze that "the membership of a united Germany in NATO raises a number of difficult issues. For us, however, one thing is absolutely clear: NATO will not extend to the east. And, since the absence of NATO expansion is determined, this is true in the general case."[a][12][19] As a result of negotiations with Kohl, the Soviet leadership gave the go-ahead for the creation of a monetary union of the GDR and the FRG, which became the first step towards the unification of Germany.[35] And on February 13, 1990, at a conference in Ottawa, the Soviet leadership agreed to West German proposals for negotiations in the "2+4" format on resolving security issues in connection with the unification of Germany,[12] and, as stated in the diary of Shevardnadze's assistant, journalist Teymuraz Mamaladze, the day before Baker assured Shevardnadze that "if a united Germany If it remains in NATO, then it will be necessary to take care not to expand its jurisdiction to the East."[23][36]
As I understand this, it was indeed offered during negotiations. But offered is not the same as promised, and final agreement does not include that. I think it would be important item to include if both sides agree in details, but they did not.
Regardless, the idea behind the treaties is precisely to avoid the situation “he said/she said”. The fact is that it is not part of any agreement. Case closed.
I will add this - the current situation in Ukraine by no means is a result of NATO expansion. Quite the opposite. Had Ukraine managed to become NATO member before Russian aggression, there would be no war. And the opposite is likely true as well: had NATO stay in the borders of 1990, many former republics could end up in “reconstructed USSR”. There was no objections against NATO eastern expansion until somewhat recently, when Putin decided to build an empire, and yes, NATO is very inconvenient for that.
This is all a sidenote because this is a question of whether nato has been encroaching on russia, and the answer is obviously "yes", and the US was well knew it was a threat to Russia (in their opinion). So why would the US/NATO keep doing an agressive thing that has been a major contributing factor in multiple wars?
Let me ask again, which part of Russia NATO encroached? Expanding east is not the same as encroaching on Russia. You can argue that NATO encroached on Russia's interests, to which I actually agree. With one comment though that Russia's interests in this case seems to be subjugation of neighboring countries. To that, NATO is indeed the a problem.
That might be how you feel, but russia finds it to be a direct encroachment the further east we go. Hell, just take a look at the monroe doctrine if you wonder how america would feel about a similar thing.
All you need to do is to listen Putin's speeches about Ukraine not being real country and reconstructing greatness of Russia to understand true motivations behind that. The rest (demilitarization and denazification) is the noise and propaganda from brainwashed public.
That is misleading at best, do you know the actual reason he invaded Ukraine? Its the same reason he invaded Georgia and Crimea. I can tell you if you actually want to know the truth, not what is being laundered through the media.
I agree that it is the same reason, and even similar tactics. Support of separatist, (more overt in case of Ukraine), and triggering response from the state, and then "protecting our brothers". In case of Georgia, it was actually very successful, especially since Georgian government (forgot who was it at the time) started to outright bombard the cities, which they should not have done. But in case of Ukraine, the situation was different.
First of all, the number of civilian death (roughly equal on both sides) before the war was minimal. Something like 10 per year. It did not warrant such escalation. (I think more than 100,000 people died on each side, and like 10,000 civilians as result of this escalation). The conflict was on down-spiral.
Second, at most, if the motivation was truly to protect the people in Donbass, it would have been sufficient to enter those territories and stay on the border without attempt to take Kiev, Kharkov, without capturing Kherson and so on. And I am not even going to mention in details how the insurrection in Donbas has started to begin with, with "military tourism" and FSB operatives like Strelkov. Putin even then, in 2014, wanted to get Ukraine to himself, has nothing to do with NATO.
No, the real motivation is the imperial territory expansion, reconstruction of the "Great Russia" with the use of ethnically Russian population in other countries as a good pretense and element of propaganda. Quite genius actually, in an evil kind of way.
Sorry, but this is western propaganda. The real reason is that they dont want the west on their border in those countries. With georgia, I believe it was April where Georgia said they were trying to join nato, and then in August, russia invaded. In Crimea, the russian controlled government was overthrown with a western controlled on and they took over crimea and started the border war. With Ukraine, we knew it was the "brightest of red lines" but we started to try to negotiate to get them to join Nato, and russia invaded.
I have to think america/nato knew the end result and decided that either way it would harm russia, and the only cost would be dead Ukrainians, so a win either way (in their opinion). When they do the "BUT RUSSSIA IS TRYING TO RECREATED THE SOVIET UNION!!!!!", its just propaganda to pretend like the US/nato had no influence on the situation.
Somehow, having already 4 countries bordering since 2004 (and now Finland) somehow was OK. And there was zero chance Ukraine becoming NATO member, and everyone understood that. Multiple countries, including Germany were absolutely against this.
But, I think it is interesting that you think that if country wants to join defensive alliance then military invasion is appropriate response.
Then they do the "BUT RUSSSIA IS TRYING TO RECREATED THE SOVIET UNION!!!!!", its just propaganda to pretend like the US/nato had no influence on the situation.
That's what Putin himself was publicly saying (not in such direct words, of course). But he WAS talking about recovering greatness of Russia in context of Ukraine not being a real country. I mean how more transparent one can be? "We are at war with Ukraine, Ukraine is not real country, it belonged to Russia, Russia is reconstructing its greatness." Should I add here his speech about Novorossiya as well? How blind one can be in order to deny that and think that this has anything to do with NATO?
In this, I support you. Even though I think you are wrong (see my other reply) the overlain tendency of reddit-like users to be an ideological monolith and remove anything and everyone which/who goes against it scares me sometimes. Upvoting you just because you are contributing to the discussion and are not becoming negative or doing personal attacks.
Thank you, I appreciate you not just following the herd. Its crazy that there are issues that we are not even alowed to disagree with. I fear it will destroy the country in the end.
Yeah, it turns out when a small group of people own all the grain and cattle for an entire country, they’ll probably demand more and more money until you can’t afford to feed people anymore. Then, if you try to cease the grain and cattle to give to the people, the few rich farm owners will probably burn all the grain and slaughter all the cattle because if they can’t make a profit, then people should starve. Rough times.
The historical experience of the USSR was a brainrot on communists. Having a bias for Soviet nationalism is already bad enough, but imagine letting that evolve into Russian nationalism. Defend the same right of self-determination for Ukraine you would have defended for Vietnam 60 years ago.
Vietnam mostly didn’t want to be occupied by a foreign army. They resisted the occupation by Japan after WWII and when that war ended and the Japanese left they liked not being ruled over by foreigners.
But then when France got a military together they returned to Vietnam to resume where they left off with the colonialism thing they did before the war.
The Vietnamese didn’t like that. They asked for US support in resisting French colonialism, because the US resisted British colonialism in the past. US wasn’t going to go against France, interests in Europe took priority over interests in Asia.
So Vietnam needed an outside backer. So who do they go to.
Remember that the last foreign power Vietnam has fought against was not the US. They had a war in Cambodia and a war with China after the US left. I’m not an expert on Vietnam, but there’s a whole lot more going on there than the US-Vietnam war and the propaganda around communist domino theory would have you to believe. Yeah they invaded Cambodia, but that was because Pol Pot was an insane psychopath. After the Khmer Rouge was defeated they left. Turns out Vietnam wasn’t really all about spreading their version of their communist ideal, they kinda just did’t want people from elsewhere telling them how to run things. Not Japan, not France, not the US, and no not even China.
The analogy between Vietnam and Ukraine is an apt one. A lot of people going around talking about domino theories and spheres of influence and talking like you’re stupid if you don’t understand the things coming from the brilliant mind of Henry Kissinger. Trying to make it fit into an ideological framework. It seems the people of Vietnam were too “stupid” to understand the brilliant analysis coming from people elsewhere. Ukrainians seem like they may be the same kind of “stupid” as the Vietnamese were. While everyone else is talking ideology and spheres of influence, they just go on shooting at foreign invaders. But in the end, who are the ones being stupid? The Vietnamese didn’t seem very stupid from my perspective and the Ukrainians don’t seem stupid either. Simple non-ideological motives are way more powerful than ideological motives.
In 1954, France gave up its colonial claims on Vietnam. But even as France prepared to leave the region, the United States and other democratic nations continued to assert influence on the internal affairs of the country. Specifically, they forced Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnamese Communists to accept a treaty that divided Vietnam in half. Source
So, we want we want Ukraine to be independent and free from American and Russian interference, like we would have wanted Vietnam free from American and USSR involvement?
There’s a romantic ideal of a resistance movement that needs no outside support. But the reality is the US needed support from France to gain independence from Britain, Vietnam needed support from Russia and China to get independence from France and the US, Afghanistan needed support from the US and Saudi Arabia to get independence from the Soviet Union. And on and on the list goes. So yes Ukraine needs support from other countries to maintain their independence from an invader.
In geopolitics the rules are fairly consistent but the players may take on different roles in different scenarios. Sometimes the US is invading a country (bad) sometimes the US is supporting a country defending themselves from an invasion (good). Of course even that’s an oversimplification, but try to break free of the nationalist idea that certain countries are always the good guys while other countries are always the bad guys. Think more on what a country is doing rather than feelings about whether a country is good or bad and you’ll have a better understanding of geopolitics.
The Soviet Union died long before the people fighting in this conflict were even born. It’s an odd form of colonialism to for someone from the outside to think that imposing a solution to a conflict that involves two countries going back to a life that neither country wants all because it fits with their ideal on what these countries should be.
It should make sense for Russian communist to make this compromise no? Destroying the Ukrainian state and having it assimilate to theirs should be harking back to the old USSR days.
The compromise: Russia gets international recognition of its claims on Crimea and the Dombas, Ukraine get admitted into NATO and enough nukes to glass Moscow should Russia try to take 1 cm more of Ukrainian soil.
Congratulations Putin, you killed 300000 of your own people for a bunch of mined farms and a warm water port that gets blocked by Turkey the second war is declared - and you are too big a coward to go up against any nuclear country, so I guess go pick on Geogia?
Any compromise that gives Russia even an inch of ukranian soil should be deemed unacceptable. Fucking armchair geopolitical experts trading off a sovereign nation’s territory.
There are cases when cession of territory should be considered as a means of obtaining a lasting peace.
1/6th of the country to an aggressor state trying to commit genocide that has done this twice before and gone back on its word both times is, obviously, not a reasonable option.
The only reason they did it again was that they got away with it. A war with NATO and nukes the next time around is not “getting away with it”. If Ukraine had not given up its nukes in the first place, the first time would not have happened.
(Plus, I want to know what will happen when peace is called and +1 million unhappy soldiers return to Russia. Might be a faster way of returning Crimea if Russia devolves into civil war)
I can’t think of an examples of countries wanting peace but can’t have it because they can’t share. I also can’t think of any countries that swapped some land and everything was cool and grovy later.
You don’t think it has to do with the complex trade relationships, a shared language, related cultures, and geopolitical similar goals?
Nah it must be because the US and Canada made sure some piece of East Jahunga Island with 1000x as many beavers as people border was perfectly defined.
Legit, we came close several times during the 19th century to outright war (other than the War of 1812, naturally). One of our presidents was elected with a "Pro-War with Britain if they don't give us the land we think is our's" platform. Land swaps were an integral part of avoiding that.
The sad truth is how brained washed and suppressed the people are in Russia. Things could be much better if that was not the case. Any idea on how to let them free?
It’s hard to avoid a “no true scottsman” with the current state of bots and propaganda accounts.
But as far as I can tell, there are hardly any lefties, or even tankies, who unironically support Russia or even a middle ground position. Despite their hate of the west, Russia is clearly the greatest evil here.
Most of the middle ground positions I see come from fox news.
Maybe. But previously when I engaged with people making this same claim, when they provided their evidence (a link to a hexbear post) and I actually spent the effort to verify it, it was trivially clear that their evidence was wrong, and when I showed that to them, they blew up and blocked me from the entire community (they were a mod).
Since then I’ve been pretty skeptical of people making this claim.
Don’t take my word for it. Even though your instance is defederated from them you can still go to hexbear.net and search locally for posts about Ukraine.
I think any argument for peace and negotiations and compromise with Russia is met with overwhelming downvotes. Worse on reddit, pacifism is seen only in controversial now. The above meme is clearly pro-war propaganda too, as to prevent any rational discussion. It’s total victory or death.
If you’re a pacifist, you’re treated as a communist-nazi.
If you’re a pacifist, you’re treated as a communist-nazi.
If you’re advocating that Ukraine should lay down its arms before clear security guarantees are in place, or at the loss of its territory you may as well be a “communist-nazi”.
This was Russias final offer - which I’m not advocating for but it does contain some perfectly reasonable demands to protect themselves from US aggression. Of course Russia wants to keep using Sevastopol and doesn’t want offensive weapons on their boarders.
Putin highlighted the fact that it was “NATO that was undertaking dangerous attempts to develop Ukrainian territory and increase its potential along [Russia’s] borders”. He demanded “reliable, legal guarantees” that would preclude NATO from expanding its territory toward Russia or deploying its strike weapon systems in countries bordering Russia.
Of course, if you’re denying that the US is a terrorist regime that has killed millions of innocent civilians and ruined many countries in the last decades then you may well be a fascist.
I’m certainly not denying that Russia is an authoritarian far-right regime that suppressed Ukraine and that Ukraine absolutely has a right to be free. But if you’re bordering on Russia, you’ll have to make accommodations and be smart. Total war is not smart.
But as far as I can tell, there are hardly any lefties, or even tankies, who unironically support Putin or even a middle ground position. Despite their hate of the west, Putin is clearly the greatest evil here.
But as far as I can tell, there are hardly any lefties, or even tankies, who unironically support Russia or even a middle ground position. Despite their hate of the west, Russia is clearly the greatest evil here.
Unfortunately, I can attest to a great many tankies who unironically support Russia or a 'middle ground' position. I could post examples all day long and not run out. At least, not run out of examples. I'd run out of will to live pretty quickly.
The last time someone said that to me, they sent me a post from hexbear that was clearly a joke, and when I showed them where it said it was a joke, they blocked me.
To cede that this is representative of tankie culture? Quite a few, plus evidence that it’s not an inside joke or satire
To cede that this is representative of communist culture? Same as the above, but more.
To cede that this is representative of leftie culture? I’d have a difficult time believing it wouldn’t be buried by counter examples.
Let’s start with, let’s say 5 posts from prominent communist communities that: a) are clearly mainly about this, b) are clearly not a joke, and c) clearly have broad support from within the community.
Those examples will give me a starting place to look around myself.
What? I thought that the evidence was trivial to find, didn’t you say?
I also said that reading through them sapped my will to live. Why would I trudge through them just so some twat online can say, "LOL but those are just a few examples!"
What did you expect me to say? “Oh you sent me a link, let me fully believe you without checking out the thing you linked”?
I told you to set the criteria to your liking. I asked you how many you wanted as evidence. I don't think "IF you find these as evidence, I'll concede the point" is such a ridiculous thing to ask.
Sounds a lot like you’re making a bad faith argument to me
As a counterexample, here is a post “How Russia became far right?” where everyone agrees that Russia has a far right government, even though some communist sympathy remains in the population. I’d think that shows that they do not support Putin as communists, or even at all.
There is some good faith discussion in those subs, but when confronted with an enemy they close ranks and default to “US bad, anything the US hates we love”
Yeah, but that can be a valid tactic. The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that.
I’m not a state socialist but the US is a terrorist regime that absolutely needs to be checked. So even though I don’t like many things about the governments of Russia or China or Iran, I am rooting for them to… well to survive without being completely co-opted. Can you imagine if the US completely dominated those countries? How incredibly bad it would get?
I’ve party saw it when the USSR fell, there was a counter balance missing which I believe directly led to the social democratic parties in the US and EU embracing “the third way” (neoliberalism).
To be fair, I backed myself into a corner here. I’ve been procrastinating because I really don’t want to immerse myself in tankie forums. But as I said, I’m not willing to accept the claims at face value. So I just keep putting it off 😭
I should have just kept my thoughts to myself lol.
As a Ukraine supporter since the beginning, it’s Biden and congress who deserve criticism. They should have given Ukraine all the tools to win. They also should have protected Ukrainian airspace and her coast along the Black Sea. With full support, I think Ukraine had good shot of expelling the Russian invaders but that window is over. US leaders are now saying it was about hurting Russia, it wasn’t about Ukraine winning. That tells me meaningful US support is over.
The West is a failing system unable to reverse it’s inequities. It’s supporters can only attack critics for pointing out the warning signs. What a sad ass meme.
How many examples of leftists on the Fediverse saying shit about how Ukraine has to give in to Russia and its Legitimate Concerns(tm) would it take to convince you otherwise?
There are a lot of dumb takes online, and it’s easy to misunderstood users on social media platforms. So if you are serious, and want to have a good faith conversation with me about geopolitical events, debating about what fediverse randos are or aren’t saying isn’t a good starting place.
So the meme isn't a strawman, you just don't like discussing what online randos say.
Forgive me for being wary of letting online randos run amuk and uncontested after the events of [checks notes] 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Then why are you bringing that up to me? I wanted Ukraine to win, I wanted Russia expelled!
The meme is fucking stupid, the US military has been leaking to the press for while now. Ukraine will have to give up territory, aka compromise. And all users like you can do is complain about other users on our social media platform.
When I see memes blaming the powerless for a humanitarian disaster, I’m going to speak up.
If a rando has a bad take on Ukraine, tell them. But these strawman memes are designed to pull our attention away from what’s actually happening. Are you averse to challenging power, because it feels that way to me.
When I see memes blaming the powerless for a humanitarian disaster, I’m going to speak up.
If a rando has a bad take on Ukraine, tell them. But these strawman memes are designed to pull our attention away from what’s actually happening. Are you averse to challenging power, because it feels that way to me.
“Either a fantasy I made up or a reality that’s objectively worse and happening right now as a result of an actual fascist waging a personal war, but the second one is better because at least we aren’t right wing amiright?”
I've asked this a few different times, and if you're willing to answer, you'd be the first. How many people died to these death squads, in what year(s)?
I suspect a particular reason for the unwillingness to give a precise answer, but let's see what you say.
No answer because I was busy with other shit lol. It’s not terribly hard to find either, here is a good overview of ukrainian fascism. CW for dead bodies, gruesome heartbreaking stuff.
Yes, I've seen people send me this type of thing before. You didn't answer the question. How many, in what years? There's a reason I am asking for specifics from you, so that then you'll need to defend your own claim.
Irrelevant question. The point is about whether there are right wing death squads terrorising the people in east ukraine. There are my sources proving they exist. If you want to make up some weird statistic so you can have measure of how bad these nazis are in order to be able to dismiss them then you’re looking for nazi apologia. In which case you can fuck off.
The reason I'm asking is that, if it had actually happened, there would be a specific answer. That's a hallmark of factual information; it might be true or false, but it's specific and unchanging. You can compare it against other facts, and if it's true, it lines up. For the most part all the different pieces fit together. Propaganda information changes wildly, or contradicts itself, and the conversation keeps coming back to emotional appeals or angry hostility, and away from simple factual questions.
When I first started asking this question, I was genuinely taking it pretty seriously. It was part of an extensive conversation with some people where I was looking up UN death and incident figures, watching Youtube videos like the ones you sent me, asking questions about what was being presented or looking things up for myself. I actually spent a whole bunch of time on it. So the original reason I asked was that I wanted to see if it was true or false, and the best way I know to do that is to dig for a lot of details, then compare them against other stuff, make sure they're at least internally consistent, etc.
Every single conversation I've had about these supposed death squads went this way though.
Hey, how many people have died in Gaza during this war? "About 27,000 so far"
Hey, how many people died on Kristallnacht? "Early estimates were 91 on that particular night; modern estimates are in the range of hundreds"
Hey, how many people died to Ukrainian death squads in Donbas? "You fuck off watch this Youtube video dead children you're obviously a Western idiot how dare you say there weren't death squads fuck you fuck you fuck you Russia's the best"
Hey, how many Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima? "Somewhere from 100,000 to 150,000"
See if you can spot the outlier. Again, I was originally asking about it expecting a specific answer and some kind of elaboration so I could compare it against other stuff to start to piece together whether it's true, but it was a little hard to ignore the pattern once it started happening.
If what had actually happened? Nazis in donbass? Why dont you interact with what I said. I dont know what youtube video you’re talking about. What I linked is a three part series going into extreme detail about nazism in ukraine from WWII on as well as UN reports about missing persons in the region. Unless you interact with what I actually said I see no reason to continue this “conversation”
Obediently watching your videos while you absolutely refuse to answer simple questions about your position is not "interacting," and I'm not interested in doing it.
I spent hours watching videos the last time I did this. If I decide I want to do it again, I'll let you know. How many people died to these death squads in Donbas, in what year?
what videos dude wtf are you even talking about. I mean the reason there is no such statistic is because it’s not a singular event. Like take the burning of the trade unions building in odesa 2014, thats 43 dead. Is that high or low?
As the government crumbled and the nazi forces spread the russians in Ukraine had to cobble together their own defense forces. This was a time when the maidan “self-defense” force was still rather hooligan and street-fighter like. With the collapse of the government the police force evaporates and now you have a civil war. It’s not as clear cut as an organized, pre-meditated attack on an unarmed civilian population like in Gaza, during the Kristallnacht or Hiroshima. It’s a civil war that goes on for over a decade now. I dont understand why you’re so fixated on some statistic that doesn’t fit the situation at all.
"Violence erupted on 2 May, when a 'United Ukraine' rally was attacked by pro-Russian separatists." Source
You can feel one way or another about street violence and I'm sure we can argue about whether that was what initiated the battle, but are you seriously claiming that those 43 dead were a result of "death squads"?
And as government crumbled and the nazi forces spread the russians in Ukraine had to cobble together their own defense forces. This was a time when the maidan "self-defense" force was still rather hooligan and street-fighter like. With the collapse of the government the police force evaporates and now you have a civil war.
Sounds closer to the truth of what happened, although obviously I disagree with elements of your characterization. Sounds like the goalposts have moved now, from "death squads" and pogroms into an ethnic ongoing civil war. The ethnic violence, from both sides, I'll 100% agree was happening yes. If you want to talk about whose "fault" that was, and abandon the claim of organized death squads, we can move to that instead, and I'll be happy to talk about it.
It's not as clear cut as an organized, pre-meditated attack on an unarmed civilian population like in Gaza
I thought that's exactly what it was, though? Ukrainian death squads preying on helpless Russians and so they had to "fight back" to defend themselves?
How many Russians died during the initial pogroms that they were defending themselves against when they armed themselves and started attacking Ukrainian demonstrations?
I dont understand why you're so fixated on some statistic that doesn't fit the situation at all.
I've already explained why, but I will again: I don't believe these death squads or pogroms existed. Definitely, I believe there was ethnic violence in eastern Ukraine, on both sides, but I believe that this idea that the Ukrainian government was systematically exterminating Russians is, to me, pure propaganda fantasy. Maybe I am wrong in that, although at this point I don't think so. Asking about objective and specific details of what you're saying happened is a way to start to pin it down. Then if your numbers and dates contradict some other facts that are provable, it's a pretty clear indication that it didn't happen. It's a way to sort fact from propaganda.
I'm not trying to ask for the number because I'm "fixated" on it, or because I'm planning to say it's high or low or whatever. I'm asking as a way of seeing what you're actually claiming happened. You've already moved a certain distance, from "death squads" to talking about street violence which at least one reliable source says the proximate cause of was Russian gunfire, so it's already had some of its intended effect.
Five members of the ‘Donbas’ battalion have been accused of a number of crimes against civilians including abduction, armed robbery, extortion, banditry, hooliganism, and illegal possession of weapons. Four members of parliament including a former commander of the ‘Donbas’ battalion attended one of their preliminary hearings on 30 August. They requested the court to release the defendants on their personal guarantees. The members of parliament overtly exerted pressure on the judges, threatening to initiate corruption proceedings. They also verbally insulted the victims, accusing them of separatism. Ultimately, the defendants were released on the personal guarantees of the parliamentarians.
As previously documented, sexual violence is most often used as a method of torture for conflict-related detainees. For example, a man detained in the Kharkiv SBU building in May 2015 was tortured for hours in an attempt to extract a confession. He broke down when a person claiming to be a doctor entered the room with a set of surgical tools and started pulling down his pants while threatening to cut off his testicles. SBU officers then took him to the investigator’s office where he was compelled to sign several self-incriminating statements.61 In another case, a woman arrested in April 2015 by Kharkiv SBU was subjected to various acts of torture, including threats that the SBU officers would hand her daughter over to the Right Sector or Aidar battalion, so she could “watch how they play with her”.
This is what I mean by “terrorism of nazi death squads”. Everything else is stuff you made up about what I said. I’m ending it here you arent doing your due diligence but expect me to look up everything.
Yes the attack on the trade unions building was by nazi death squads. Look at the UN report on it, or just read the article I linked you.
It is a key feature of propagandists that they must not engage in a two-way dialogue. Everything must be them presenting their narrative. Inconvenient questions are met with hostility or long lectures, or demands that you consume large amounts of their media as a precondition of continuing the conversation.
Have a good one.
Edit: Actually, one amendment, can you link me to the UN report on the fire? That, I'd be interested to read.
Add comment