this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
241 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15915 readers
5 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
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
I don’t want to put a bunch of preludes and explain myself etc.
But man, you really think Russia invaded because of a “land grab”? Does that make any sense to you?
The Russian Federation, famously short on land
To be somewhat fair, all of Russia's claims in Ukraine (Crimea, the Donbas) would give them unparalleled access to the Sea of Azov and the northern banks of the Black Sea. Yes, I know they control a significant portion of the Black Sea already, but this would allow them to wrap the Sea of Azov nicely.
I know Russia states they're there to kick the Nazis out of the Donbas and protect the Russian language minority in that region, but I also don't believe any nation, especially a very nationalistic, neoliberal government like Russia's, is out doing something out of the goodness of their hearts. Call me a cynic, but I think the expanded Black Sea control is more important to the government.
I see the expanded Black Sea control as a way to sure up control of Crimea. If they didn't then the only physical connection between Crimea and the rest of Russia would be the bridge, which has shown to be quite vulnerable.
It's literally just to stop NATO expansion, protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine is just an incidental political benefit
The "warm port" and "land grab" theories are pure nonsense that ignore the last 8 years of Eastern European history
I mean, how many wars have Russians started in the past for access to a warm water port? Shit, how many times have they fought over just the Crimea? Access to the black sea has been one of the most strategically important national goals for Russia throughout history.
Not the dreaded warm water port discussion. When will we ever grow as a society?
Honestly, give climate change another 30-40 years and it prob won't be an issue you hear about ever again.
What, all of them, unanimously, assembling their bodies into a single collossal humanoid mass of flesh and bone? This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory..... the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don't know materialism? It's some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the "inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs" crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I'm not saying you're not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
I don't know what you're talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Lol, that's quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of "Russians". Do you get as pedantic if I were to say "the Americans benefited from chattel slavery"
A conflict they've been perpetuating for nearly a decade...... you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You're literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory..... why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who's trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It's all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Not the person you replied to, but I’d like to jump in on that question. Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn't mean that America itself didn't benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn't trying to make.
My point is perhaps best expressed as follows:
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that's just how you're interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Versus
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context.... I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it's a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It's fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn't take input from the Russian people.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
It’s not unreasonable for a person reading your responses to see that particular form of national essentialism and then you referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain.
It’s okay to be wrong here. If you’re okay with it you can move on to something else after learning some shit. If you’re not okay with it you’ll end up dying mad and no one wants that.
Yes, they occupy roughly the same region and thus have the same material constraints. Just because a revolution took place, doesn't mean the incoming government is going to be less reliant on access to the black sea.
You honestly think that I believe the people yearn for warm water ports? That seems to be a bit of a stretch, I think you're being purposely obtuse.
Lol, how am I being wrong about my original claim? You have a semantic dispute with the use of the word Russian, despite the given context, and my further explanation. You are just fighting a strawman you erected yourself.
I’m not talking about the veracity of your original claim, whatever that is.
The thing you’re wrong about is that it’s obvious what you’re talking about when you aren’t careful with your nationalist language and present the modern history of Russia in the Black Sea as a book entitled “the quest for a warm water port”.
If it was there wouldn’t be a bunch of people giving your posts the hairy eyeball in written form.
If it was obvious you’d have a bunch of people apologizing for doubting you instead of thoroughly questioning you to figure out what the heck you mean.
And if that questioning was gonna turn up a hapless lib who stumbled into right wing language without knowing, you’d be recognizing it instead of digging your heels in!
Well it's good to know we agree that you're arguing against a strawman.
Nationalist language is when ..........you utilize the name of a state, sure.
A bunch of people meaning......two? In reality it seems you didn't really have much to argue with about my original claim, so you hyper focused on a pedantic misinterpretation that I all ready clarified.
Lol, you do realize that you're the only one who's focused on nationalism, right? You steered the question towards it, even when I stated that was an incorrect interpretation, explaining the context, and how it would be impossible for me to think that the Russian people had control over a pure monarchy.
I already said that it was silly to hold the beliefs you accuse me of, and have explained my reasoning. You still are completely disinterested in any discord that doesn't involve nationalism. And have admitted that your entire rebuttal has nothing to do with my original claims.
Leftist like you are a cancer to the cause. Instead of open discord and mutual aid, you offer nothing but gait keeping and dogmatic theory. All you do is attempt to force some aspect of theory you poorly understood to any conversation that allows you to be a contrarian. Ego boosting isn't praxis ya dweeb.
"Access to infrastructure that allows the movement of critical goods" isn't really captured by the phrase "land grab"
please name one (1) war started by the Russian Federation or the USSR
Lol, going to be interesting to see how you justify your interpretation "war started".....
Okay I'll bite. For the soviets, let's go for when Stalin and Hitler buddied up an invaded Poland together, or we could go with the Afghan war, pick your poison.....
And for the federation, let's go with the first Chechen war.
Why were they "forced"? Poland was not part of their country, they had no reason to be forced into killing polish people. They decided to divide it and ally with the nazi.
Lol, ahh yes Hafizullah Amin invited the spetznaz and kgb to the palace to assassinate him. You're talking about Babrak Karmal, who invited them, but that was already after the soviets had deposed the last leader in storm-333.
Lol, didn't expect that amount of nationalistic language to come from a supposed leftist. Chechnya is only Russian by de jure, it's a colonial holding from the Russian empire.
Again, it's interesting to see you define "started the conflict". Does a country not have a right to self determination? Didn't Lenin say that the workers should be able to determine their own future? Is declaring independence from a historically abusive colonizer an act of war? Or is responding to a declaration of Independence with hard power when the war begins... you can't have it both ways.
you fucking dumb antisemitic piece of shit, Poland was occupied by the Nazis and was massacring Jews and other minorities. the USSR intervened to protect people and give themeselves buffer space for the future Nazi invasion of russia. If you are aiding Nazis your 'self determination' is less than worthless. A shitload of Polish citizens sought refuge in the USSR and a shitload more fought on their side against the Nazi collaborators. Literally look at the citations of the WIkipedia page for the occupation of poland, they cite Tadeusz Piotrowski constantly, who on his own wikipedia page is said to be regurgitating Polish nationalist right wing propaganda.
America hired and funded right wing and Nazi propaganda immediately after world war 2 to push "double genocide" narratives exactly like yours. You are ignorantly repeating debunked Nazi propaganda.
Yes, the ally of the Soviets were massacring Jews. Which the Soviet Union really didn't care about. They were completely fine with having the nkvd massacre polish officers, which a significant part of were Jewish. The whole reason Poland has such a high Jewish population was because a lot of them had already fled pogroms in Germany and the very early Soviet Union.
Lol, except when It was the soviets?
"Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on 11 February 1940 that was over four times larger than the one that the two countries had signed in August 1939.[219] The new trade pact helped Germany surmount a British blockade.[219] In the first year, Germany received one million tons of cereals, half-a-million tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria. Those and other supplies were being transported through Soviet and occupied Polish territories.[219] The Soviets were to receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy naval guns, other naval gear and 30 of Germany's latest warplanes, including the Bf 109 and Bf 110 fighters and Ju 88 bomber.[219] The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools, and samples of German artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment, and other items.[219]"
And tons were forcibly removed to gulags. It's almost like there were multitudes of different opinions and causes in Poland at the time.....
And the soviets took in zero Nazis, or ever propagandized their partnership with the nazi?
When did I say anything about a double genocide? My claim was that the soviets invaded Poland with their Nazi allies.
It's hilarious that you say I'm repeating debunked propaganda when you won't eve acknowledge that the soviets and nazi were once allies.
the fucking nazis were literally racist against slavic people, they did not take prisoners during their invasions, they sent them to death camps. to suggest that the soviets and the nazis were allies is patently absurd, their ideologies are diametrically opposed and you can do literally any cursory research to confirm the opinions of the people involved. literally read anything the nazis wrote about the soviets at the time, or anything the soviets wrote about the nazis. other users have already provided the context for those agreements, which you ignore. The soviets had tried to establish treaties with the allies before the molotov-ribbentrop pact, which they refused. it was an act of desperation to give the USSR time to establish military production factories and supply lines before the war. to spin that into an alliance is simply irresponsible historiography.