It’s not saying it’s bad to be anti-war, it’s saying that it’s a naive position in this case - a simple “anti-war-ism” as opposed to the more complicated “fully understands the core of modern geopolitics”. “Anti-war-ism” is still placed exactly opposite social darwinism, but is adjacent to both “fully understands geopolitics” and “dogs of US empire”.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this, just that they’re acting rationally in the face of a threat. In fact, Russia should be the weakest link in the anti-imperial camp. The Russian Federation would have been perfectly happy to join NATO and assist with the oppression of the third world, but for one reason or another, NATO wasn’t interested - my personal theory is that Russia would have provided too much of a counterbalance to the US within NATO, potentially making NATO dangerously independent. Thus, Russia remained a designated enemy even after it liberalized. But, the specific reason isn’t the main point, the main point is that Russia has been forced by circumstance into the anti-imperial camp, while Ukraine has chosen to be a tool of the imperial camp. It’s as simple as that, and you can be as anti-campist as you want, but there are objectively two camps, and no unaligned alternative. If you asked any Ukrainian nationalist, they would agree that they are with the west against the oriental hordes.
Ukraine was the culmination of a process of bringing former eastern bloc states into NATO in order to surround and weaken Russia. Russia understood this, and had Ukraine as a red line. From the Russian point of view, a Ukraine allied with the west would be a hostile state placed at the furthest southern line of advance of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That is to say, any potential attack on Russia by NATO would begin where the Germans stalled out (at least on the northern and southern fronts), and thus have a much greater chance of reaching Moscow. Or, a bit more realistically, NATO missiles and aircraft could be based much closer to the Russian heartland than before. You can argue that their assessment would be wrong, but that only makes sense if you trust NATO over Russia, where even a neutral position (i.e. don’t trust Russia or NATO) would hold that Russia’s concerns are valid.
Even then, Russia didn’t immediately invade Ukraine after the 2014 coup (Maidan wasn’t a revolution, it was just a seizure of power by right wing nationalists). Yes, they seized Crimea and supported the eastern separatists, but they didn’t fully commit until it was completely clear that no diplomatic solution was forthcoming. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky had been elected as the peace candidate - people wanted the civil war to end, and that’s what he campaigned on. He ended up being too weak to stop the nationalist militias from fighting, so the war continued, and with a diplomatic solution dead in the water, Russia took their shot.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia. Ukraine placed itself in the imperialist camp, and this forced Russia solidly into the anti-imperial camp. To support Ukraine is to support a victory for imperialism. Thus, to support both Palestine and Ukraine is to support the empire being weakened in one region and strengthened in another - it’s a geopolitically incoherent position because it comes from a geopolitically naive read of the overall situation.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia.
Pretty sure Ukrainians just want better living conditions just like anyone else. And “the west” happens to have arguably the best living conditions; I’m not surprised anyone would want to be at this table. Are you really arguing that people are looking at Russia as a nice place to go live? I’ve never actually set foot there, but from the other side of the world it doesn’t look good. Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Also, invading Ukraine as a preventative measure against NATO expansion turned out to be spectacularly stupid, because it directly led to NATO expansion to a direct neighbour (Finland).
But yeah, in general I’m not on the side of countries invading other ones. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong, what Israel is doing in Palestine is wrong, and what the US is doing in Venezuela/Iran/Greenland/Cuba is also wrong.
Do you think they were ever going to give Ukrainians a chance to be “western”? They just wanted to use them as a tool against Russia, not elevate them to a western European standard of living. The entire inciting incident of Euromaidan and all of this was Yanukovych’s cancellation of the Ukraine-EU association agreement in favour of a deal with Russia, but the thing is, Russia actually offered a better deal than the EU. This pissed off the nationalists (read: Nazis) because they really hated Russia, and pissed off the NGO liberals because they hated Russia and loved the EU.
But Yanukovych did actually have his own constituency, which was the Russian speaking east, and they saw the “revolution” as the nationalists undemocratically imposing their will on the country. The new government pretty much immediately sent in the army to quell the unrest, and this sparked the civil war, which led to the eventual Russian invasion. Once again, I will reiterate that Zelensky was elected as the peace candidate who would stop the war, but the nationalists sabotaged the peace process. He went to the frontline and ordered them to stand down, and they stonewalled him. I saw the video, and this was before AI video was even close to convincing (will smith eating the spaghetti era).
So what you have is a Ukrainian state that’s captured by, on one hand, extreme nationalists who idolize Stepan Bandera (a fascist genocidaire from WW2), and on the other by NGO liberals, who aren’t much less bloodthirsty and see the easterners (really, see the whole working class) as expendable post-soviet refuse. The NGO liberals don’t fight on the front, and while the Azovites did put up a fight at Mariupol, they seem to mostly fill the line with middle aged conscripts they drag off the street rather than have the hardcore nationalists do the fighting.
As far as what they’re fighting for, the reforms of the post-maidan government just amounted to decommunization and Ukrainization - that is to say, they removed old Soviet monuments and banned the Communist party; and they suppressed the main minority language of the country. They didn’t make life better for anyone, they didn’t strengthen labour laws or the welfare state, they just did a right wing culture war. Actually, that’s not quite correct - they also cut natural gas subsidies and lifted a ban on sale of farmland (i.e. to foreign investors),, and privatized the economy further.
They could have had a peace treaty, and the only cost would have been giving eastern Ukraine a seat at the table. Instead, the nationalists and liberals opted to let their country be used as a kamikaze against Russia. Sure, Russia could have just not invaded, but they saw the issue as an existential red line. The west knew that they would eventually respond to provocation, but they figured there would be little cost to the west, and didn’t care about the cost to Ukraine. Now there have been entire generations of men fed into the meat grinder with no end in sight, and Russia continuing to slowly advance. In what world is this better than just signing a peace treaty and ending the civil war? Do you think Europe is going to rebuild what’s left of Ukraine once this is over?
Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Yes it is, the USSR was destroyed and the economy was liberalized.
lol. Now THIS is what you call a straw man. I like how you got proven super wrong then you were like “well some of u fucking tankies believe this shit” Lol. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up & read dude. Read something that wasn’t written by an asset. God damn
It’s not saying it’s bad to be anti-war, it’s saying that it’s a naive position in this case - a simple “anti-war-ism” as opposed to the more complicated “fully understands the core of modern geopolitics”. “Anti-war-ism” is still placed exactly opposite social darwinism, but is adjacent to both “fully understands geopolitics” and “dogs of US empire”.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this, just that they’re acting rationally in the face of a threat. In fact, Russia should be the weakest link in the anti-imperial camp. The Russian Federation would have been perfectly happy to join NATO and assist with the oppression of the third world, but for one reason or another, NATO wasn’t interested - my personal theory is that Russia would have provided too much of a counterbalance to the US within NATO, potentially making NATO dangerously independent. Thus, Russia remained a designated enemy even after it liberalized. But, the specific reason isn’t the main point, the main point is that Russia has been forced by circumstance into the anti-imperial camp, while Ukraine has chosen to be a tool of the imperial camp. It’s as simple as that, and you can be as anti-campist as you want, but there are objectively two camps, and no unaligned alternative. If you asked any Ukrainian nationalist, they would agree that they are with the west against the oriental hordes.
Ukraine was the culmination of a process of bringing former eastern bloc states into NATO in order to surround and weaken Russia. Russia understood this, and had Ukraine as a red line. From the Russian point of view, a Ukraine allied with the west would be a hostile state placed at the furthest southern line of advance of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That is to say, any potential attack on Russia by NATO would begin where the Germans stalled out (at least on the northern and southern fronts), and thus have a much greater chance of reaching Moscow. Or, a bit more realistically, NATO missiles and aircraft could be based much closer to the Russian heartland than before. You can argue that their assessment would be wrong, but that only makes sense if you trust NATO over Russia, where even a neutral position (i.e. don’t trust Russia or NATO) would hold that Russia’s concerns are valid.
Even then, Russia didn’t immediately invade Ukraine after the 2014 coup (Maidan wasn’t a revolution, it was just a seizure of power by right wing nationalists). Yes, they seized Crimea and supported the eastern separatists, but they didn’t fully commit until it was completely clear that no diplomatic solution was forthcoming. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky had been elected as the peace candidate - people wanted the civil war to end, and that’s what he campaigned on. He ended up being too weak to stop the nationalist militias from fighting, so the war continued, and with a diplomatic solution dead in the water, Russia took their shot.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia. Ukraine placed itself in the imperialist camp, and this forced Russia solidly into the anti-imperial camp. To support Ukraine is to support a victory for imperialism. Thus, to support both Palestine and Ukraine is to support the empire being weakened in one region and strengthened in another - it’s a geopolitically incoherent position because it comes from a geopolitically naive read of the overall situation.
Pretty sure Ukrainians just want better living conditions just like anyone else. And “the west” happens to have arguably the best living conditions; I’m not surprised anyone would want to be at this table. Are you really arguing that people are looking at Russia as a nice place to go live? I’ve never actually set foot there, but from the other side of the world it doesn’t look good. Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Also, invading Ukraine as a preventative measure against NATO expansion turned out to be spectacularly stupid, because it directly led to NATO expansion to a direct neighbour (Finland).
But yeah, in general I’m not on the side of countries invading other ones. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong, what Israel is doing in Palestine is wrong, and what the US is doing in Venezuela/Iran/Greenland/Cuba is also wrong.
Do you think they were ever going to give Ukrainians a chance to be “western”? They just wanted to use them as a tool against Russia, not elevate them to a western European standard of living. The entire inciting incident of Euromaidan and all of this was Yanukovych’s cancellation of the Ukraine-EU association agreement in favour of a deal with Russia, but the thing is, Russia actually offered a better deal than the EU. This pissed off the nationalists (read: Nazis) because they really hated Russia, and pissed off the NGO liberals because they hated Russia and loved the EU.
But Yanukovych did actually have his own constituency, which was the Russian speaking east, and they saw the “revolution” as the nationalists undemocratically imposing their will on the country. The new government pretty much immediately sent in the army to quell the unrest, and this sparked the civil war, which led to the eventual Russian invasion. Once again, I will reiterate that Zelensky was elected as the peace candidate who would stop the war, but the nationalists sabotaged the peace process. He went to the frontline and ordered them to stand down, and they stonewalled him. I saw the video, and this was before AI video was even close to convincing (will smith eating the spaghetti era).
So what you have is a Ukrainian state that’s captured by, on one hand, extreme nationalists who idolize Stepan Bandera (a fascist genocidaire from WW2), and on the other by NGO liberals, who aren’t much less bloodthirsty and see the easterners (really, see the whole working class) as expendable post-soviet refuse. The NGO liberals don’t fight on the front, and while the Azovites did put up a fight at Mariupol, they seem to mostly fill the line with middle aged conscripts they drag off the street rather than have the hardcore nationalists do the fighting.
As far as what they’re fighting for, the reforms of the post-maidan government just amounted to decommunization and Ukrainization - that is to say, they removed old Soviet monuments and banned the Communist party; and they suppressed the main minority language of the country. They didn’t make life better for anyone, they didn’t strengthen labour laws or the welfare state, they just did a right wing culture war. Actually, that’s not quite correct - they also cut natural gas subsidies and lifted a ban on sale of farmland (i.e. to foreign investors),, and privatized the economy further.
They could have had a peace treaty, and the only cost would have been giving eastern Ukraine a seat at the table. Instead, the nationalists and liberals opted to let their country be used as a kamikaze against Russia. Sure, Russia could have just not invaded, but they saw the issue as an existential red line. The west knew that they would eventually respond to provocation, but they figured there would be little cost to the west, and didn’t care about the cost to Ukraine. Now there have been entire generations of men fed into the meat grinder with no end in sight, and Russia continuing to slowly advance. In what world is this better than just signing a peace treaty and ending the civil war? Do you think Europe is going to rebuild what’s left of Ukraine once this is over?
Yes it is, the USSR was destroyed and the economy was liberalized.
You must be talking to different tankies than I am.
lol. Now THIS is what you call a straw man. I like how you got proven super wrong then you were like “well some of u fucking tankies believe this shit” Lol. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up & read dude. Read something that wasn’t written by an asset. God damn
Eh, some people go a little too far with things