this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
447 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13530 readers
166 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Multipolarity I think is what people are hoping for here. Not having a single capitalist power so invincible that it can control the world unilaterally.
It would ostensibly allow smaller countries to play the larger powers off each other and extract some concessions for one. Just the very fact of having other options provides at least some leverage and makes development and security more likely. And if any of those alternatives are less bloodthirsty and exploitative than the US (how could they not be?), so much the better.
You’re right that none of this is a direct confrontation of capitalism, but even just as a demonstration that other nations can stand up to the US, perhaps with the help of a competing capitalist power, this war can (maybe already has) bolstered resistance to the worst of imperialism. It’s not global communism but it’s a step in the right direction, or at least a step away from complete subjugation to a single globe spanning hegemon.
So, emboldening for the global south at least. And perhaps it coalesces into a broader post-post-colonial movement at some point. Who’s to say. Hard to imagine any shift in the global balance of power away from the west right now being a bad thing anyway.
The war itself is of course a disaster and tragedy for everyone involved. But on a purely geopolitical level, I think there’s a real possibility that it ends up benefiting the global proletariat going forward.
I guess multipolarity makes sense as a possible positive outcome of the war. When you frame it like that, aren't we already starting to see that in Niger? Does Russia need an unconditional Ukrainian surrender (or even partial victory) to see multipolarity as an outcome or have they already demonstrated their military power enough?
Niger was actually exactly what I was thinking of. That’s an interesting question though. I think we have to bear in mind that while Russia is certainly interested in multipolarity, it also has its own more concrete individual interests to consider since the war is right next door. And these might not always line up precisely with a broader global interest in multipolarity.
I tend to think of multipolarity in this context more as a practical result than the single overarching conscious goal of Russia’s here. They’ve certainly demonstrated that there are cracks in the armor, but I think they’re after something closer to an actual security guarantee in the region moving forward. What it will take to achieve that (or whether it is in fact achievable in the short term) is anybody’s guess. Depends on how much both sides want to press the issue I guess.
And I think this is a point a lot of people miss when they think of critical support for Russia as a fondness for the Russian government or for war itself. It’s more about the recognition that there may be positive global outcomes from Russia winning the war, regardless of their motivations (though I personally think they are at least somewhat legitimate). More that Russia’s resistance to the west is useful to the rest of the world than that they are “the good guys.”