Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Ukraine
- This topic has 144 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
Zooey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2022 at 10:01 am #137107
Billy_TParticipantAlso, I’m not seeing any formal agreement by NATO to accept Putin’s demand to block new countries from joining. He made the demand. Doesn’t mean NATO agreed to it.
And this aspect bothers me as well: I think the authors who tried to equate NATO’s expansion with Putin’s invasion — or say the former justifies the latter — need to re-calibrate their moral compasses. Nation-states that willingly join an association aren’t in the same universe as nation-states that seek to block that at the point of a gun. There is an obvious moral and ethical distinction between the former Warsaw Pact countries choosing to join NATO, and Putin’s gobbling up Georgia, Crimea, and now Ukraine. I would think this would be easy for leftists. Condemn Putin’s actions, full stop.
March 1, 2022 at 10:08 am #137108Billy_TParticipantWV,
Saw that I dealt with similar questions yesterday, in the 9:11am post. Reading that one should make my recent answer a bit clearer.
Would appreciate a response. Hope all is well.
March 1, 2022 at 10:36 am #137109
wvParticipant======== Cant say I understand any of that, BT. w v
I guess it is a bit long-winded. Will try to boil it down. I’m seeing, especially since 2015/2016, an inordinate amount of energy spent (from some on the left) trying to “understand” Russia’s actions — and by extension, Trump’s. This can take the form of absolute denial that things we know happened ever happened. Or it may just be jumping through endless hoops trying to excuse it, or just saying none of it matters. This all too often lines up perfectly with GOP talking points, Fox News, and Putin’s propaganda, etc. etc. These same people do not spent one iota of time trying to “understand” the actions of people and entities on the other “side(s). I would get it if the same attempt to “understand” was evenly applied, or its opposite: condemnations of all sides without explanations. But I do not get the lopsided nature of the critique, nor do I get why Putin and Trump are the objects being defended in the first place. As mentioned, I would if “leftists” were fighting on behalf of the oppressed, the powerless, the earth, or their champions — as per leftist tradition. But Putin is a far-right dictator, and quite possibly the world’s richest man. Trump is a billionaire too. Both men are in direct opposition to every leftist stance on the books, and Trump and his party, especially, constantly demonize the entire left.
===========
Ok, but you are not talking about Ukraine, or Putin, you are talking about leftist youtubers you dont like. Dore, etc.
I cant respond to much of that because i rarely watch them anymore. So, I dont know what they are saying or who you are talking about besides Dore.
I can say this. I used to like Dore a lot. Then you started complaining he sounded like a trumpie. And I would respond he doesnt like trump, he’s a leftist in favor of M4A and all of Bernie’s policies.
But then i started noticing Dore NEVER says a word about the rightwingers. Its all aimed at the Dems. (and i used to be the same way)
And it slowly started gnawing at me: Why doesnt he ‘ever’ slam the Reps? I mean, maybe even just ONE show every six months or so. I’d be happy with ‘that’. But he never ever says a word about Trump/Reps.
He never says “the Dems AND Reps are the problem”. Its always Biden this and Clinton that, etc.
So that made me start wondering about him. All he’d have to do is every now and then include the Reps. I mean its a DUOPOLY. That means both parties are to blame.
So, because of that (because of you) I got off the Dore train. I dunno if he’s a Rep Op or being paid by the Reps or if he’s totally legit and just has a ‘thing’ about the Dems. A LOT of leftists obsess about the Dems and they say “well its just a GIVEN that I hate the Reps”. I hear that all the time on twitter. And i get it cause i used to SAY it all the time myself. And i was never a Rep Op.
But i changed. I decided it only takes a millisecond to write the “Dems AND the REPS” are monsters or whatever. So why doesnt Dore do that?
Now, I do NOT put Aaron Mate, Chris Hedges, Cornell West in the same category as Dore. I’m not sure about Glenn Greenwald. He’s a weird one. Matt Taibbi is on shitlist for reasons i cant even remember 🙂
Anyway, I rarely watch these folks anymore. I ‘never’ watch Dore.
I just know the various internet leftS are a complete mess, for all the reasons that have been around for over a century. The leftS are a complete clusterfuck. One of the gazillion reasons i am a complete, utter, doomer.
We still disagree on Ukraine. No big deal for me. We are leftists. We dont agree on shit.
w
v
March 1, 2022 at 11:14 am #137110Billy_TParticipantWV,
Good response. And spiced up with some of your ™humor too. That’s needed right now.
My earlier long and winded road, regarding capitalism: I think if I hadn’t written it, I wouldn’t know what the hell I was saying either.
;>)
Basically, on your earlier question about ultimate responsibility for the invasion: Yes, capitalism. It creates an entirely artificial climate of bottom-up competition for jobs and scarce resources, to go with the top-down stuff that’s always been there. It’s likely the first economic system in history that developed its own gaslighting infrastructure to create (a mostly successful) buy-in from the masses.
Capitalism depends on that, unlike any previous system. It has to create a climate where people think they’re involved with this crap by choice, instead of via a matrix of force and dire necessity. This also leads to our being pitted against each other, and seeing this as “natural” when it’s not. That gets us closer to accepting war too. The concept of the nation-state does some heavy lifting along those lines as well. But it’s mostly the global economic system.
My take on Ukraine, however, is that this is a specific event, with specific moral agents involved, and only one of them can say No. Putin had the power to just say No. We’re not going to invade. We’re going to hold good-faith talks with Zelensky and company and try to persuade him to stay out of NATO, if that’s our desire. Not via threats — which is all Putin has done for two decades — but through actual negotiations.
In my view, this specific case is entirely on Putin. He didn’t have to invade. Nothing forced him to, except for his own lust to extend his already gargantuan nation-state.
March 1, 2022 at 1:33 pm #137113wvParticipantWV, Good response. And spiced up with some of your ™humor too. That’s needed right now. My earlier long and winded road, regarding capitalism: I think if I hadn’t written it, I wouldn’t know what the hell I was saying either. ;>) Basically, on your earlier question about ultimate responsibility for the invasion: Yes, capitalism. It creates an entirely artificial climate of bottom-up competition for jobs and scarce resources, to go with the top-down stuff that’s always been there. It’s likely the first economic system in history that developed its own gaslighting infrastructure to create (a mostly successful) buy-in from the masses. Capitalism depends on that, unlike any previous system. It has to create a climate where people think they’re involved with this crap by choice, instead of via a matrix of force and dire necessity. This also leads to our being pitted against each other, and seeing this as “natural” when it’s not. That gets us closer to accepting war too. The concept of the nation-state does some heavy lifting along those lines as well. But it’s mostly the global economic system.
My take on Ukraine, however, is that this is a specific event, with specific moral agents involved, and only one of them can say No. Putin had the power to just say No. We’re not going to invade. We’re going to hold good-faith talks with Zelensky and company and try to persuade him to stay out of NATO, if that’s our desire. Not via threats — which is all Putin has done for two decades — but through actual negotiations. In my view, this specific case is entirely on Putin. He didn’t have to invade. Nothing forced him to, except for his own lust to extend his already gargantuan nation-state.
==
I agree with all the stuff on capitalism, as you know. I could go on about capitalism all day, all night, all the rest of my days. Probly not healthy, but the fury inside me is never going to ebb. I just have to distract myself a lot, with rams and planting native plants, and poetry and scones and whatever.
And yes, I understand the position you (and zn) have on Ukraine. Its a ‘specific’ distinct decision by Putin and ‘nothing forced him’ etc.
My view is completely different. My analogy (dueling analogies all over the internet on this) is…oh….a bear. In a cage. With a sign. “Dont poke the bear, it has nuclear weapons.” And Mr Nato Countries comes along and pokes the bear. Repeatedly. And the bear warns Mr Nato Countries repeatedly. And…more poking.
The bear than decides to erupt. Yes its a specific decision by the bear.
No, he doesnt ‘have’ to erupt. But do i only blame the bear? Nah, I blame both.
I might feel diff bout Ukraine if I thought the Big-Capitalist-Gangster
actually cared about the Ukrainians. But they dont. Anymore than they cared about the Iraqis or Nicaraguans or Chileans or…go down the list.
Its just pathological capitalist chess games. Resource wars.
I F’ing blame them all.
…i was at a private dinner the other day. A former BBC reporter was there. She teaches at Princeton now. We were disagreeing about some things and she said “Is there ‘any’ politician in history you respect?”
Only one i could think of was Allende. Tried to bring socialism in a peaceful way. And of course the freedom-loving-west killed him.
w
v
March 1, 2022 at 1:45 pm #137114wvParticipantI’m gonna repost this Mearsheimer vid. I started this one at a certain point where he says “the west is leading Ukraine down the primrose path…”
He said this in 2015.
Now, I dont share Mearsheimer’s politics. He believes the west wants to “spread democracy” blah blah. But i still think he has some interesting insights on the geo-chess-game the west is playing with russia and china.
w
v
March 1, 2022 at 4:40 pm #137116
CalParticipantMy view is completely different. My analogy (dueling analogies all over the internet on this) is…oh….a bear. In a cage. With a sign. “Dont poke the bear, it has nuclear weapons.” And Mr Nato Countries comes along and pokes the bear. Repeatedly. And the bear warns Mr Nato Countries repeatedly. And…more poking.
The bear than decides to erupt. Yes its a specific decision by the bear.
No, he doesnt ‘have’ to erupt. But do i only blame the bear? Nah, I blame both.
Wouldn’t a better metaphor be–your dumb ass, drunken buffoon of a neighbor buys a big old pit bull. He, of course, treats the dog like shit and doesn’t train it.
One day, the dog gets out and bites your daughter in the face. You get to spend a whole day in the ER, your daughter has a scar on her face for the rest of her life, and when you call the cops they don’t do shit.
You put up a fence and tell your neighbor if you see his dog in your yard you’re going to shoot it. He spends the next decade pissing on your fence in front of your 8 year old daughter before one day he tears it down and has a bunch of his buddies attack you.
This analogy is getting unwieldy here, but you get the point, right?
Yes, NATO expanded before Putin ever came to power. But was that because the west coerced countries like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. or because those countries lived with corrupt Soviet control for years and felt legitimately threatened by their large, nuclear power neighbor who had a history of expanding its borders with imperialistic zeal?
The only means of security and independence for some of those countries is nuclear weapons or joining NATO.
This seems like an easy choice to me.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Cal.
March 1, 2022 at 5:34 pm #137119wvParticipantWouldn’t a better metaphor be–your dumb ass, drunken buffoon of a neighbor buys a big old pit bull. He, of course, treats the dog like shit and doesn’t train it. One day, the dog gets out and bites your daughter in the face. You get to spend a whole day in the ER, your daughter has a scar on her face for the rest of her life, and when you call the cops they don’t do shit. You put up a fence and tell your neighbor if you see his dog in your yard you’re going to shoot it. He spends the next decade pissing on your fence in front of your 8 year old daughter before one day he tears it down and has a bunch of his buddies attack you.
This analogy is getting unwieldy here, but you get the point, right?
Yes, NATO expanded before Putin ever came to power. But was that because the west coerced countries like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. or because those countries lived with corrupt Soviet control for years and felt legitimately threatened by their large, nuclear power neighbor who had a history of expanding its borders with imperialistic zeal? The only means of security and independence for some of those countries is nuclear weapons or joining NATO. This seems like an easy choice to me.
=========
Nah, i dont see that analogy at all.
I posted a long response, Cal, but after reading it, i zapped it,
because i cant respond to any of that without going down a rabbit hole
I dont wanna go down.
We just come at this from different points on the political compass,
I think.
w
v
March 1, 2022 at 5:45 pm #137120
znModeratorYes, NATO expanded before Putin ever came to power.
And again it’s irrelevant. NATO does nothing to Russia. It can’t do anything to Russia. All NATO does is put a brake on Russian efforts to expand and re-acquire USSR’s imperial borders. That’s all it does. NATO is only a threat to that, and not to Russia.
I mean honestly, what actual physical, material, or economic threat does NATO pose to Russia?
And there is no genuinely good reason Russia must have those old USSR borders, which means crushing eastern European nations, all of which experienced Stalin. They could just give those ambitions up.
In fact it is my understanding that pre-Putin Russia did not object to NATO expansion.
March 1, 2022 at 6:20 pm #137121znModeratorUkraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east
The main issue highlighted by the crisis on the Ukraine borders over the past few months has predominantly focused on the role of Nato and the friction over the eastward expansion of the alliance. This has been a constant message emerging from the Kremlin: that the Nato membership of many parts of the old Soviet Bloc, and the prospective membership of Ukraine to the alliance, poses a threat to Russian sovereignty.
But the decision to accept former members of the Warsaw Pact, the defensive alliance which included the USSR and several eastern European countries, is being subject to a revisionist history. This is perpetuating a myth that Nato promised not to expand eastwards after the Soviet Union dissolved.
In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that that Nato’s enlargement “was not discussed at all” at the time:
Not a single 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.
There was, he said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance, though in the same interview Gorbachev also stated that he thinks that enlargement was a “big mistake” and “a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made” in 1990.
Indeed, the only formal agreement signed between Nato countries and the USSR, before its breakup in December 1991, was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The promises made specifically relate to Germany, and the territory of the former GDR, which were on the deployment of non-German Nato forces into eastern Germany and the deployment of nuclear weapons – and these promises have been kept.
Looking for security
In seeking to develop a role in the international order after the end of the cold war, Nato realigned towards a crisis management and conflict prevention security function. The alliance agreed in July 1992 to offer to undertake peacekeeping duties on behalf of the United Nations and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) had been established in 1991 with the USSR and former Warsaw Pact countries as members, to enable dialogue and enhance transparency between western and eastern Europe.
But many former Warsaw Pact countries wanted a greater level of assurance of their security after the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. These countries duly signed the Visegrad Declaration in February 1991, with the objective of “full involvement in the European … system of security”.
The relative security of the eastern European states was challenged during the 1990s due to the attempted October coup in Moscow in 1993, the first Chechen war in 1994 and Russian assistance to the breakaway Republic of Abkhazia in the south Caucasus. The combination of these events increased the perception of vulnerability, particularly in the Baltic states, indicating that Moscow was prepared to act militarily to pursue its security objectives.
Alongside the increasing security concerns of former Warsaw Pact countries, there was significant debate in the early 1990s about the merits of enlargement. Rather than jump straight into enlarging Nato, the Partnership For Peace (PfP) was established in 1994 and included NACC members as well as former Soviet Asian countries, such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. The result was a greater formalisation of the security arrangements, initially developed by the NACC, into a structure that allowed for PfP members to engage in Nato peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Russia was a participant in these new security arrangements, and was keen to clarify that Nato enlargement was not a security threat to Russia. The then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, wrote in a September 1993 letter to the then US president, Bill Clinton: “Any possible integration of east European countries into Nato will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia.” So it was being clearly signalled that Russia did not object to the direction Europe’s new security architecture was following.
The three Visegrad countries were duly invited to join Nato at the 1997 Madrid Summit, joining in 1999. Slovakia was forced to wait until 2004. The move was widely supported by the people of the countries which joined. Hungarians voted 85.3% in favour of Nato membership in a referendum, for example.
Enemies no longer
The bedrock of the Nato-Russia relationship, the Nato-Russia Founding Act, was also signed at the 1997 Madrid Summit alongside the enlargement invitations. As the second formal agreement of the post-Cold War era between Russia and Nato, the act confirms that “Nato and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries”, and that Nato transformation is “a process that will continue”. It is, therefore, clear that Nato enlargement, was not considered a primary security concern for Russia.
The Baltic States openly pursued Nato membership, following the signing of the Baltic Charter of Partnership with the US in 1998. Rather than oppose Baltic membership, Russia actually helped it to happen by resolving border disputes with Lithuania.
Russia also demonstrated its continued to desire to remain in a cooperative security relationship by developing the Nato-Russia Council in 2002. Despite Russia’s occupation of the Crimea and Donbass, both legally still part of Ukraine, the council has still met a number of times a year, most recently on January 12 2022, alongside the informal lines of communications that continually remain open.
Nato enlargement has been a controversial subject – within as well as outside of the alliance – since the 1990s. But, when the present situation is placed within an appropriate context, it can be argued that Nato is not an aggressive, expansionist alliance. It also appears that Russia gave at least tacit approval to the enlargement, including the former Soviet Baltic states, and was signalling its desire to be a partner in the European security architecture.
Of course this has changed over the past decade. But the reason for that changed relationship is not Nato – it’s Vladimir Putin.
March 1, 2022 at 7:41 pm #137123wvParticipantUkraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east=======
Strange, because he also wrote this in 2014:
https://gavinelhall.blogspot.com/2014/
‘…Ukraine is dependant on Russia for its energy. It is dependant on the European Union for far less other than harder to quantify aspirations to a Western way of life. Therefore, it may well be the case that history reflects that the EU and NATO have been complicit in the present situation by tangling an unreachable carrot for Ukraine.
Incidentally at numerous times during the 1990s Russia was given assurances that the EU and NATO would not impact Russia’s sphere of influence. The abandonment of this premise is a significant reason behind the current tensions…”
March 2, 2022 at 1:48 am #137132znModeratorUkraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east======= Strange, because he also wrote this in 2014: https://gavinelhall.blogspot.com/2014/ ‘…Ukraine is dependant on Russia for its energy. It is dependant on the European Union for far less other than harder to quantify aspirations to a Western way of life. Therefore, it may well be the case that history reflects that the EU and NATO have been complicit in the present situation by tangling an unreachable carrot for Ukraine. Incidentally at numerous times during the 1990s Russia was given assurances that the EU and NATO would not impact Russia’s sphere of influence. The abandonment of this premise is a significant reason behind the current tensions…”
Yeah many of the reads of the Ukraine situation turn on views that really date from 2014.
I just take it the guy changed his view by 2022.
If you disagree with me, it’s because you were never a real Rams fan.
March 2, 2022 at 8:37 am #137139Billy_TParticipantIf you disagree with me, it’s because you were never a real Rams fan.
No one can call themselves a true Rams fan if they don’t acknowledge the game-changing impact of Billy Truax — and that includes the Super Bowl this season. Aaron Donald? Sure. But without the foundation put in place by Billy Truax, none of this would have been possible.
Back to Ukraine for a moment:
Part of the calculus for any act of war: If we don’t do this, X will happen. But there’s another huge part that all too often is discounted: If we do go to war, what are the consequences?
I think, going in, Putin had to know that the world would react in a seriously negative manner. He likely didn’t foresee the extent or the solidarity of reactions — Switzerland’s break with neutrality, and all the sports, tech, and entertainment bans, for instance. But he must have known he would be largely isolated and it would hurt him financially. He also must have known that NATO would then have no reason to ever hold back from further expansion. The “if you expand, I will attack” card is gone after he invades.
To make a long story shorter, I personally can’t see any “upside” for him or Russia, thinking in pre-war terms. None. Zero. Zip. And that’s not even counting the most important downside, the massive loss of life and health that doesn’t seem to ever end after a war. He and Russia lose a ton, and his best case scenario is that he puts a Russian puppet in charge of Ukraine, while the entire world is unified in opposition. NATO has support now to do the very thing Putin said was a threat to Russia. As in, his invasion will cause more NATO expansion. Plus, the EU drops Putin like a bad dream. As in, things are far worse for Putin and Russia after even a “successful” invasion.
March 2, 2022 at 3:15 pm #137169wvParticipantStarted this at the 13:28 mark, cuz his sentence at that point is how i see it.
Finnish-Bolshevik:
March 2, 2022 at 10:29 pm #137190CalParticipantI understand wanting to acknowledge the problems that the EU, America, & their allies have created. But to NOT acknowledge Russia as the primary, secondary, tertiary, and so on problem in the Ukraine war seems to diminish the suffering of Ukranians. Russia, even though starting a war with your neighbor is a terrible idea unless you’re Saudi Arabia, invaded Ukraine.
This video seems to diminish what looks like a clear and vocal Ukranian majority that is not just crazy Nazis or far-right fascists. Ukranians, based on their willingness to die defending a country led by a Jewish president & fighting a war against the far superior Russian foe, just want to be independent from Russia.
Focusing on this war as an ugly battle between capitalist gangs makes me wonder how Ukraine fits into this story. Isn’t it natural that they want to move away from Russian influence?
For their last 20 years, Ukraine seems to have been dominated by pro-Russian politicians. That’s what the Euromaidan stuff of 2014 seems to be about to me. A quick read of Wikipedia seems to challenge your video with this:
“November 2013 saw the beginning of a series of events that led to his ousting as president. Yanukovych [the president who was ousted by the so-called ‘coup’] rejected a pending EU association agreement, choosing instead to pursue a Russian loan bailout and closer ties with Russia. This led to protests and the occupation of Kyiv’s Independence Square, a series of events dubbed the “Euromaidan” by proponents of aligning Ukraine toward the European Union”
I wonder who the “Russian loan” would have benefited–Ukraine or Russia! I don’t know much about Ukraine’s recent political history, but the more I read, the more it sounds like this a Putin pattern. Putin and Russia dominate their neighbors and put their guys in charge. Putin’s Russia seems to have a habit of putting their guys in charge of other non-NATO countries. Isn’t that what Belarus and Georgia have?
Is the west really to blame for Ukraine’s desire to escape the orbit of a domineering, corrupt Russian system? It makes sense that Ukranians would want to escape that. And this war seems to suggest they seem are willing to die to escape it.
And why does this Marxist critique, if that’s what the Finnish-Bolshevik is, miss, diminish, or slightly distort an important part of this story, the Ukranian struggle? These are people frustrated by being shackled to a corrupt Russian system for generations.
Here’s a quote from Wendell Berry that I thought was connected to this whole idea, but maybe it’s not. It’s too late for me to figure out the connection now, but I won’t delete it because….
“What I am has been to a considerable extent determined by what my forebears were, by how they chose to treat this place while they lived in it; the lives of most of them diminished it, and limited its possibilities, and narrowed its future. And every day I am confronted by the question of what inheritance I will leave. What do I have that I am using up? For it has been our history that each generation in this place has been less welcome to it than the last. There has been less here for them. At each arrival there has been less fertility in the soil, and a larger inheritance of destructive precedent and shameful history.”
March 3, 2022 at 12:11 am #137194znModeratorWell this is depressing https://t.co/E2nKILW5rr
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) March 2, 2022
March 3, 2022 at 7:46 am #137199Billy_TParticipantZN,
Tried to post a response to the youguv poll. No luck. Might be the link to an Emma Goldman article. Not sure. Shouldn’t have been a problem.
March 3, 2022 at 8:20 am #137198Billy_TParticipant‘Which do you think best describes Russia?’
Communist: 42%
Socialist: 13%
Capitalist: 11%
Something Else: 17%YouGov / March 1, 2022 / n=1495 / Online https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/aa58ig9d3b/econTabReport.pdf
That poll is depressing. The USSR was never communist, at least not beyond small enclaves. Communism being the absence of the state, you can’t have a communist nation-state.
Nor was it socialist. It was state capitalist, as Lenin said. He said he had to yank Russia into the 20th century, establish capitalism to do so, and socialism could wait. And they waited, and waited, and waited, and it never happened.
After 1991, of course, it went hyper-ultra-capitalist, outdoing even the US on those grounds.
Pretty absurd that such a large number of people think post-USSR Russia is communist or socialist.
Emma Goldman wrote this back in 1936:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
March 3, 2022 at 9:03 am #137205
nittany ramModerator‘Which do you think best describes Russia?’ Communist: 42% Socialist: 13% Capitalist: 11% Something Else: 17% YouGov / March 1, 2022 / n=1495 / Online https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/aa58ig9d3b/econTabReport.pdf
That poll is depressing. The USSR was never communist, at least not beyond small enclaves. Communism being the absence of the state, you can’t have a communist nation-state. Nor was it socialist. It was state capitalist, as Lenin said. He said he had to yank Russia into the 20th century, establish capitalism to do so, and socialism could wait. And they waited, and waited, and waited, and it never happened. After 1991, of course, it went hyper-ultra-capitalist, outdoing even the US on those grounds. Pretty absurd that such a large number of people think post-USSR Russia is communist or socialist. Emma Goldman wrote this back in 1936: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-there-is-no-communism-in-russia
Well, that’s depressing, but not surprising.
US citizens know nothing about the world beyond our borders. And as the world grows smaller, it seems like we become more and more disconnected with it. We The People are willfully invested in not wanting to know about anything outside of the US.
Climate change, habitat destruction, war – the world is on fire, and we’re relying on a population that doesn’t know or care what a fire hose is to somehow muster the political will to extinguish it.
March 3, 2022 at 3:21 pm #137208wvParticipant…Isn’t it natural that they want to move away from Russian influence? …”
…
Well we just see it differently, and I’m pretty sure its simply because
we come at things from a different point on the political-compass,
and we view capitalism differently.
But that question you ask is a good one. But it brings up so many deep political issues involving ANY nation-state. Who is the ‘they’ that want to move away from Russian influence? What are the Ukranians’ options? Maybe ‘they’ prefer neutrality? What if the percentages are all over the place and depend on the amount and level of information the Ukranians have? What if ‘X’ group of Ukranians prefers russian influence, ‘Y’ group prefers Nato, and ‘Z’ group prefers neutrality, and ‘W’ group has no idea?
There’s a gazillion questions and I would never trust the US/Western media or ‘academics’ or ‘experts’ (or the Russians) to ask those questions, or answer those questions.
w
v
March 4, 2022 at 9:31 am #137215Billy_TParticipant…Isn’t it natural that they want to move away from Russian influence? …”
… Well we just see it differently, and I’m pretty sure its simply because we come at things from a different point on the political-compass, and we view capitalism differently. But that question you ask is a good one. But it brings up so many deep political issues involving ANY nation-state. Who is the ‘they’ that want to move away from Russian influence? What are the Ukranians’ options? Maybe ‘they’ prefer neutrality? What if the percentages are all over the place and depend on the amount and level of information the Ukranians have? What if ‘X’ group of Ukranians prefers russian influence, ‘Y’ group prefers Nato, and ‘Z’ group prefers neutrality, and ‘W’ group has no idea? There’s a gazillion questions and I would never trust the US/Western media or ‘academics’ or ‘experts’ (or the Russians) to ask those questions, or answer those questions. w v
All of that’s moot now, of course. Pre-war, most Ukrainians didn’t think Putin would invade. Almost until the actual day of the invasion. So any preference they may have once had is now forever colored by Putin’s attack on their nation. It’s going to be based now on Putin’s slaughter of civilians, his destruction of residential areas, hospitals, schools, dorms, etc. A million people have fled the onslaught. It’s pretty clear Putin wants the entire country for himself and his legacy, and will install a puppet regime to control it.
Last night, there was almost a nuclear catastrophe, as Putin’s forces seized a nuclear facility, and Putin is saber-rattling about using nukes as well. If any Ukrainians were on the fence, one way or another, they’re now going to rush headlong into the waiting arms of the EU and NATO, and they’re going to hate Russia for generations.
March 4, 2022 at 11:32 am #137223
ZooeyParticipantNATO exists only to defend western Europe against an imperial and expansionist Russian right-wing autocrat who assassinates his critics. The deal Russia make with Ukraine when the latter dismantled the nukes wasn’t upheld either. NATO is nothing but a defensive arrangement against an aggressive Putinized Russia. Eliminate Putin and a more benign Russia could easily de-escalate the entire NATO situation since under those conditions NATO would have no reason to exist.
You are making the distinction that NATO is strictly a military alliance.
I’m using it as a concrete representation of Euro-American hegemony.
Yeah, NATO isn’t going to invade. It doesn’t have to. Euro-American business interests are consuming Ukraine without NATO having to do anything beyond military exercises.
And I think it’s very doubtful that NATO would go away without the threat of Putin. It didn’t go away after the threat of the USSR disappeared.
March 4, 2022 at 3:54 pm #137226znModeratorNATO exists only to defend western Europe against an imperial and expansionist Russian right-wing autocrat who assassinates his critics. The deal Russia make with Ukraine when the latter dismantled the nukes wasn’t upheld either. NATO is nothing but a defensive arrangement against an aggressive Putinized Russia. Eliminate Putin and a more benign Russia could easily de-escalate the entire NATO situation since under those conditions NATO would have no reason to exist.
You are making the distinction that NATO is strictly a military alliance. I’m using it as a concrete representation of Euro-American hegemony. Yeah, NATO isn’t going to invade. It doesn’t have to. Euro-American business interests are consuming Ukraine without NATO having to do anything beyond military exercises. And I think it’s very doubtful that NATO would go away without the threat of Putin. It didn’t go away after the threat of the USSR disappeared.
Sry Z, don’t buy it. The only hegemony NATO has is over the territories of allied NATO countries, and the only reason for its existence is mutual defense against the world’s 2nd largest nuclear power. The only thing it denies Russia is re-expansion to the old USSR borders. That would be true no matter who was in charge of Russia. Certainly having a grade-A level psychopath in charge of Russia at the present does not help.
Again. What was NATO wearing that caused Putin to react so aggressively?
At least when the USA invaded Iraq we knew Hussein was a murderous despot, though that didn’t stop us from criticizing the action (which I was wholeheartedly a part of). Ukraine? It’s just land grabbing.
March 4, 2022 at 8:18 pm #137236ZooeyParticipantThat’s counts as bad news, right?
Staff at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine sent a message to Ukrainian media and government authorities warning that the Russian troops that took the plant are now laying down explosives around it in order to "blackmail the whole of Europe."
— MK-ULTRA (@mkultranews) March 4, 2022
March 5, 2022 at 12:29 am #137248znModeratorThat’s counts as bad news, right?
I dunno. You would think that any contamination that would threaten Europe would threaten Russia as well. And the Black Sea. Or maybe they really are that crazy.
March 5, 2022 at 9:59 am #137252znModeratorA Florida Man tried to get out of a speeding ticket by blaming Vladimir Putin: “To tell you the truth, ok, I just found out that Putin just said he’s going to launch nuclear thermal war against the world, and I was trying to get back to my house.” pic.twitter.com/O0oukjda6r
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) March 5, 2022
March 5, 2022 at 10:11 am #137255nittany ramModerator<script async=”” src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
Well, at least we got to see the Rams win another Super Bowl before the world ends.
Frankly, there were times in the past coupla’ decades when I had my doubts it would happen.
March 5, 2022 at 11:04 am #137256ZooeyParticipantYou would think that any contamination that would threaten Europe would threaten Russia as well. And the Black Sea. Or maybe they really are that crazy.
That was my first thought, too, but then memories stirred up a little dust in my brain, and I seem to recall that the fallout of Chernobyl blew west or southwest towards Europe.
March 5, 2022 at 11:47 am #137261ZooeyParticipant
March 5, 2022 at 8:09 pm #137291wvParticipantFormer insider and Colin Powell ally – Larry Wilkerson’s view, fwiw:
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
