this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
5 points (85.7% liked)
News
1741 readers
1 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
who is this mysterious "they"? And how did "they" get Prigozhin and Lukashenko to do this for "them" for the reasons you say? you claim it's not some "grand scheme" yet, in the next breath, you claim another?
And how in the world do you get from here to there? Because all i see now is a fractured and demoralized military that's lost all momentum, a weakened Putin, a shocked Russian public, and Prigozian and Lukashenko (and who knows who else) lurking in the wings. A lot has already changed, and uncertainty abounds.
Oh I apologise I forget sometimes everyone here isn't a marxist now after the reddit waves, marxists would just pick up the intention from context and keeping up with news via parties and groups they're in. The "they" here is generally western aligned think tanks and forces. In particular the Atlantic Council which is largely responsible for a lot of US policy has been pushing it around in the media recently.
A marxist understanding of the war in Ukraine is as a war that was created by the west, led by the US, that benefits quite a significant number of MIC forces with large influence over US policy. Part of the narrative that maintains support for the war is the ongoing belief that Russia can be defeated, and the method of Russian defeated that has been drummed up is "Russia will collapse" as everyone with any sense can see that there is no military means of victory. If the "Russia will collapse" narrative is destroyed by the reality of a rebellion demonstrating massive support that makes any collapse obviously impossible then the entire house of cards that has been constructed falls down. Thus the result is pushing in the media the notion that it wasn't a real rebellion but instead a grand scheme by devious clever russians.
If you have questions about how the left interprets the war I'm happy to answer.
that's an... interesting viewpoint, and, as a "Westerner", i see little evidence to support this narrative aside from some Western think tanks both existing and, perhaps thinking what you propose. US media discusses a wide variety of possibilities and theories about what might be happening regarding this incident, but nothing is known for certain, especially who might prevail in this war.
as for what started this war? that was Russia's illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. period. and, unless you're implying that "the West" or even the US somehow controls him or his actions, I don't see how either had anything to do with Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
You only need to look at (very small) sample of the attendees of the Atlantic Council's meetings to see that it is directly responsible for a huge amount of policy. These people aren't attending for a laugh, they attend because they know its power and have the same interests and goals as the organisation.
Understanding the role of these organisations in the wider net of actors is a fundamental knowledge area that most liberals don't have as a result of only really paying attention to media, who always play their role down as the media functions as fundamental collaborators with state interests.
This is the liberal western interpretation. It is not the global left's interpretation which has a fairly significant consensus that this war was caused by nato expansionism, ignoring fair security concerns, and the 2014 coup that led to the civil war that preceded this. The left generally doesn't view this war as having started in 2022 but instead in 2014, with Russia eventually joining as a belligerent after exhausting the potential methods of ending it via the Minsk agreements. Both the anarchist and socialist left worldwide pretty much agrees on this, with people ranging from Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, Wolff, Yanis Varoufakis, Lula, Corbyn, Cuba, Bolivia, european socialist parties etc etc etc all having the same take across the board. None of whom get much media exposure of that of course, because like I said before the western media is collaborative with the interests of western states.
I think for context I should add that I live in the UK and that from the perspective of British politics, american liberals are to the right of our conservatives, most of you would be Tories in the UK. Understanding this context is probably important for you to understand that I do not include liberals when I say "left" or "global left", the american democrats are extremely right wing.
it's not a matter of "interpretation." Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Illegally. A war ensued as a direct consequence of that illegal invasion, and nobody but Russia is to blame.
you can cast aspersions at all of the people and nations and political ideologies you don't like, but it doesn't change those facts.
It's completely a matter of interpretation and narratives. The western community has one that serves their interests while Russia has one that serves their interests. Meanwhile the left has a completely different one that recognises the military industrial complex of america profiting off of its new forever war while millions of innocents are sent to their deaths.
You subscribe to the liberal one. That's fine. I do not.
I suspect our opinions differ on what "sovereign" actually is here too. I don't consider much of Europe to be particularly sovereign, but instead to be vassal states of US empire referred to colloquially by the american media as "the international community", a funny name given that it excludes 2 thirds of the world. We probably differ on that opinion as well though.
well, when the fact that the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is what started the war is what's inconvenient, that's when "narratives" and "interpretations" assert themselves to deflect blame and cast aspersions upon others who some happen not to like for whatever reason. It, however, doesn't change the facts of the matter, regardless of how many straw men, ad hominem, whataboutisms, or other logical fallacies get bandied about.
edit: something that has always fascinated me is how someone could so ardently claim to be a "Marxist" while going to such lengths to defend the actions of an oligarchic autarch of a strictly capitalist and fascist country.
Let's keep it calm yeah? Keep in mind that nothing either of us do or say here matters and there is zero need for it to get emotional. There's no need whatsoever for this to turn nasty and it'd be a shame if it did.
Nobody has said that. However calling it a fascist country is just a complete misunderstanding of fascism. There is a faction of fascists in Russia, Navalny being a core figure among them. Putin and his faction are authoritarians, deeply unpleasant people, but fascists they are not and misusing the word is misguided. We should use it accurately.
I've also not defended them. I've said what the left's interpretation of the causes of this war are. You've turned that into "defender of russia" yourself. I can assure you that I and none of the other people I reeled off on that list are fans of the russian state. I want an end to the war, and I didn't want a state to it either. The difference between our factions is that liberals seem to think more guns and more bombs end wars, whereas socialists do not.
You're doing the "narrative" here. You can't stop yourself from talking like a deeply propagandised individual, this phrase "illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not how normal people talk, it's precisely the language used to set a narrative, and is repeated over and over and over and over in liberal media as part of media collaboration with western interests to set this as the official line of the west and deeply engrain it in its populations. With that said this is a particularly american turn of phrase and is not one used in Europe after the pushback against it succeeded, resulting in at least a little more nuance in our regional politics on the matter.
That Russia invaded? Yes certainly. But without the context, without understanding the forces in play, without understanding the influences and the historical context you can't tell me WHY russia invaded. And that's the thing here. The liberal explanation of why is just "Because Putin grrrrr, conqueror!", which is I think something you must agree is not really an adequate or academic explanation.
I'm perfectly calm-- and I'm certainly not the one who feels the need to post massive tirades defending the actions of dictators and despots while making personal attacks while trotting out a litany of logical fallacies to obfuscate the facts: Russia started this war by illegally invading the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Their refusal to leave is what continues it. This isn't a "narrative" an "opinion" nor a "viewpoint", nor can you hand-wave these facts away by blaming politics, politicians, or political ideologies you don't like nor by inventing victimization or any other rhetorical stance you find convenient to your position because none of that changes the facts of the matter.
You can decry "the West" and insult "liberals" all you like, but neither invaded Ukraine-- Russia did, and that's what started the war. Ukraine's right to defend itself, and determination to continue, while Russia refuses to leave, is why it continues.
And the point of answering why it happened is because it is a necessary component of finding the solution.
Let's try this instead, so that we're not focused on me and we're in an area that's a bit more constructive: Why do you think the war happened? What caused it?
I don't think I've insulted liberals that much here but for the sake of stirring the pot this is the general sentiment toward them in my city: It might help some culture differences going on here.
i'm not particularly interested in unpacking the psychology of Putin, and, frankly, given the tenor of this interaction thus far, I don't have great faith that you'd be willing to suddenly shift to a good-faith discussion and drop the name-calling, the insults, or the throwing-around of logical fallacies. and if "stirring the pot" remains your intention rather than calm, rational discourse, I suggest you try antagonizing someone else.
We've swapped from discussing the actual concept of power, factions and influential forces that lead to a country going in one direction or another to "putin".
Do you think that this war would not have happened if a different leader existed? Which politician in United Russia would not have started this war? Which politician in the communist party? Anyone?
Get past the idea that this war was caused by one man. There are material causes and forces at work that go beyond that. Once you get past that then you can start to understand how and why things happen, something that is extremely useful in avoiding its outcome next time - something I absolutely want to see happen but also something I am not sure americans are capable of given that you've supported every single forever war america has ever engaged in.
Hmmm I do have a somewhat constructive motivation, I'm trying to change the context a little. One thing I've found with my interactions on reddit is that americans don't tend to have an understanding of the left at all, given that the democrats are to the right of our right-wing. A lot of them say things like they want a nice welfare state but have no understanding of how radical the left has to be in order to achieve one, or to defend its existence. Jeremy Corbyn defends the USSR publicly and loudly. Diane Abbot has defended Mao on national TV. John McDonald publicly states "it is my job to overthrow capitalism". Frankie Boyle says we shouldn't be violent, we shouldn't do anything illegal, instead we should make it legal to kill all the capitalists, on national TV with the BBC funded by the taxpayer. My point in stirring a bit is to draw a little more attention to the culture differences we have. Because Americans often seem to mistakenly think they have a left when they don't, and I've found that drawing attention to these significant baseline differences sometimes inspires a bit more curiosity in american liberals to understand it.
looks like i was right in that you have no interest in dropping the name-calling, the insults, or the throwing-around of logical fallacies in exchange for calm, rational discourse.
Ah man. I'm not sure where I did that this time. Tell me what's grated you and I'll take it back. I thought I gave you a pretty explanatory response.
Is it because I keep calling american liberals right wing? I thought the last portion of my comment explained quite well what a real left looks like, that's our left, those are our luke-warm mainstream folks with their socdem policies of welfare capitalism saying all the things that would get you called a tankie on reddit. That's the soft-left of the UK, not even the hard-left.
how predictable.
What was?
You get called a tankie because of your die-hard support for authoritarian dictatorships crushing opposition using their military and police, such as by constantly advocating for anyone in western democracies to cease support for those oppositions, is the one and only reason you get called a tankie.
I have not said you should not support the ukrainian people. The problem is that you do not, you are nationalists that support the ukrainian state, not the lives of human beings. They are two quite separate things.
Gibberish. A division that seems to support the conspiracy theory that the revolution of dignity was a foreign coup. I have Ukrainian friends in Kharkiv and Donetsk. Didn't even mention Ukraine in my comment.
You assert that human life must always come above self-determination. Does that also mean the independence wars, (successful or not) of Haiti, Ireland, Zululand etc were just rash nationalism? They should have just learned to live inside the empire?
For context, bonking tankies became my hobby since living in Taipei, which your side (i am generalising here, correct me if this is a mistake in your case) keeps insisting belongs to Xi in Beijing. It's disgusting that self-proclaimed lefties support the foreign imperialist over the native democrat.