1y ago

Just a little compromise

You're viewing a single thread.

135 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
  You should probably look this over. I think it'll help clarify a lot.
  
  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?
  Ireland also has relations with NATO, does that mean Ireland will join too? Should Russia invade Ireland if that happens?
  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.
  
  So, capitalism good now?
- "Critical support", they'll say, with an absolute lack of criticism.
  
  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.
- 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.
  I don’t get it.
  
  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.

135 comments