the end of the USSR was a disaster
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
806 readers
112 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
there was this story i read a long time ago about an american soldier in iraq, talking to an iraqi interpreter who is smoking a cigarette, the american asks him why they were fighting each other (iraq and kuwait) despite them looking the same, dressing the same and, speaking the same language.
so the interpreter takes a long drag of his cigarette, (something along of the lines of) "they'll keep killing each other until they get tired of it and go home."
i may have gotten the countries wrong, but I know I got the general main line of the story remembered.
I'm new to lemmygrad, but i think that the general principle of Marxists Leninist is to liberate the working class. Then I think everything else breaks into strategies and etc which of course people have different stances on like moves in chess
some liberals feel putin is to blame, some people say nato expansion, and some lads are saying the 2009 recession was never properly dealt with - that we are now facing the contradictions of capitalism in the form of war.
at the end of it all, the war sucks and most likely foretelling of more conflicts (and subsequently more suffering)to come. (regardless the way the media wants to frame the war, it is the people who suffer)
Do I support innocent civilians dying or workers being sent to fight and getting killed? No. Do I support stamping out of Nazis? Yes. Russia has a right to security guarantees on its border which the west has continually undermined for the last 30 years. Ukraine is being use as pawn to destroy Russia and Russia made the ugly decision of striking back. I welcome the downfall of NATO.
I welcome the downfall of NATO.
Considering Russia's invasion has directly lead to the doubling of NATO's border with Russia (via Finland joining), the soon to be member Sweden, as well as many NATO countries spending more on defense, I fail to see how Russia's invasion has done anything but strengthen NATO.
You think countries like Sweden taking money away from public services and funneling them into corrupt and bloated private military-industrial corporations makes them "stronger"?
well, most people here support Russia and Z.
most people here are able to think critically, yes
and most people shouldn't be downvoting me for saying that they support Russia and Z (which they do)
You have a history of bad takes on this topic so people probably thought you are being snarky or something.
The first gulf war is an interesting thing to look at. Saddamn told the US state department he would invade Kuait because they were cross drilling into Iraqi oil fields and we're traditionally a 'part of Iraq'.
State department said we don't care
Of course, they did care and used that as cassus belli to attack Iraq and 'contain' Saddam which was the original intended consequence.
The war in Ukraine is the same. The neocons in the US have wanted Ukraine to open it's markets to blackrock and Goldman Sachs forever. They helped foment the coup and selected Ukrainians president. They knew Russia would invade if Ukraine started the process to join NATO.
The US wanted this war. It was a trap for Putin and because he is an idiot he fell for it. The goal is to weaken Russia , sell us LNG to Germany at 200% markup and flood Lockheed and Raytheon with billions of dollars. It's a win win for the US because no American boots on the ground they get to fight Russia via proxy until the last Ukrainian.
I'm totally against the war and old enough to understand the only way it ends is with a negotiated settlement.
A negotiated settlement is worth nothing without all of the russian soldiers leaving ukraine.
It was a trap for Putin and because he is an idiot he fell for it.
You should read less NYT.
"Damned if you do damned if you don't" is not a "trap." Being lied to over and over is not a "trap." Putin was backed into a corner. He didn't want to fight but in the end it was either fight or let nazis and NATO live on Russia border and genocide Russian speaking civilians until they were ready to invade Russia itself.
If Putin is "an idiot" how did he manage to insulate Russia's entire economy from sanctions? He spent the whole time he was trying to avoid the fight also making contingencies for when the fight happened.
The war is hollowing out the EU. They have lost access to cheap Russian energy and so their manufacturing capability is being gutted. All they have left is their Financial capital and without industry to back it up it will disappear before they can rectify their energy situation. European companies are already moving to China.
While the MIC is gaining short term profits from the war overall it will be a major loss. Furthermore the war has shown the global south the need for an alternative to $US. BRICS+ will be direct competition for american dollar hegemony destroying its value. Any $ gains the MIC makes it will have to pay back ten fold to the global south who they traditionary exploited for raw materials. The global south will have alternative buyers that will give them fairer prices in $ which will cause $ to lose more value. On top of all that it has shown how flawed NATO weapon systems really are, how they fare against much cheaper weapons from Russia, and how slowly they are produced. Any nation looking at purchasing weapons supplies is going to consider Russia because they are better value for money by factors of 2 digits and they wont have decades long wait lists.
The material reality of things on the ground in the war and in economies of the nations involved is completely contrary to your post.
I agree with a lot of your points, it was a 'fucked if you do fucked if you don't' situation for Putin and actually I'm not even sure about the Great Man theory of history so even if someone else was leading Russia they would probably still have responded the same way. I don't know, it still feels like a trap though. And of course the dialectical analysis shows that by cutting Russia off the swift system the BRICS economic integration just intensifies and accelerates de-dollarisation.
But I stand by my comment about Putin being stupid. Calling it a police action without stating exact goals means he's already lost the information war. There also is no way to win this war unless he goes shock and awe and literally destroys the entire country. Which is not the goal. So the Russian military cant destroy everything to force a solution, and the US is loving it, just pouring infinite money, tanks, jets, climbing the escalation ladder. They intend to outspend Russia and force a domestic coup. Which also won't happen.
So it's a lose lose for everyone except the military industrial complex, Goldman Sachs and US LNG exporters
But I stand by my comment about Putin being stupid. Calling it a police action without stating exact goals means he’s already lost the information war.
But he didn't do that. Putin said exactly what the SMO was supposed to do. Putin has some serious flaws but being stupid isn't one of them. Stop reading the NYT. "because x is stupid/incompetent/insane/evil" is the weakest analysis you can do. It is almost never true and just shows that you don't understand the situation. It's marvel movie level thinking.
The stated aims of the SMO are Defence of the Donbas separatist states, Demilitarization, Denazification, and forcing Ukraine to stay neutral. Since Ukraine and the west proved they are pathological liars Russia's game plan changed a little and now they have incorporated the break away states into Russia proper but the other goals have stayed the same.
Ukraine's army will eventually collapse. They can't stand up against Russia forever. They cant recruit soldiers fast enough, The west cant manufacture weapons fast enough and even if they could they wouldn't want to give them away to a failed state. When that happens all that remains is tearing down some nazi monuments and installing a puppet government.
Again the MIC and LNG exporters win is a short lived boost that will ultimately accelerate their own downfall. Their wins are at the cost of their allies. USA are cannibalizing Europe to prop themselves up. This is only a win if you don't look past the immediate future.
The stated aims of the SMO are ... Denazification
Putin returned the Azov battalion leaders and fighters to Ukraine in a prisoner swap. If Azov are Nazis, as is commonly stated, Putin is doing a very, very poor job at denazification in Ukraine.
What was he supposed to do? Let Russian POWs be shot and tortured while azov nazis get treated like humans?
The plan isn't to hunt down and kill every nazi. Its to make a society where nazism is strongly discouraged. When Ukraine surrenders there will be prison sentences for nazis in Ukraine like there are in Russia.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/687025
You can check out this post from about a month ago with a lot of good analysis and discussion in the comments.
War is a rich man's game, and this one is no different.
Putin is a reactionary, that isn't in question. He's not going to bring any benefit to the workers of Russia. The only reason he's popular is because he brought stability after the Soviet Union was taken out behind the barn. After that happened, they had Yeltsin, a drunk, incompetent disaster of a person and a politician. Putin's a far better alternative.
He started this war to protect the interests of Russia as a political entity, which does not include Russian workers. NATO has been aggressive towards Russia because the United States' empire has no tolerance for anyone not playing ball with them, even if they're capitalists themselves. This war has nothing to do with denazifying Ukraine (more on that in a moment), it's entirely about preserving the interests of Russian national capital.
On the end of Ukraine we have Zelenskiy, who is all too happy to throw Ukrainian men into the meatgrinder to get in good with NATO and other liberal alliances. Ukraine has a history of radical nationalism (and by proxy naziism, given the proclivities of many "national heroes" of the country to be bedfellows with the NSDAP and related people/orgs) which provides a good reason for Putin to start this mess.
Make no mistake, this war is the same as any other: a way for powerful, rich men to play chess with real human lives to boost their ego and their buddies' interests. There is no benefit for any working person to be found in the war itself or in the victory of either side.
Yes, there are nazis in Ukraine. No, this does not justify slaughtering tons of working class lives (most of whom are not even nazi-adjacent).
Being anti-war is the only stance one should take. No war but class war.
The main enemy is at home. Not our war. Should be ended asap if possible at all. Funding the arms monopolists creates incentives for war and is historically much of the base for fascism, not a way to peace.
But it also offers some much needed breathing room for the global south by depleting Western imperialism militarily, economically, politically and financially. The weakening of the dollar system being the most important development in this (imo).
Think that sums it up for me at least.
Here is an article about it from ProleWiki, which is associated with Lemmygrad and has some of the same admins.
Russia is currently fighting a war is with a client regime that US installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014. I generally agree with the reasoning for why Russia decided to start a preventative the war that Mearsheimer gives here.
While Russia has a reactionary capitalist regime, it is acting as a bulwark fighting against US global hegemony right now. NATO has been forced to devote practically all of its resources to the proxy war and this created room for the Global South to finally start shaking off western hegemony. We are seeing a major global realignment happening with countries moving off the dollar and BRICS rapidly expanding.
The war has also derailed US plans for containment of China, and it's clear that China is taking advantage of the additional time that Russia bought it. I expect that by the end of the war we will likely see the reverse moment of when USSR collapsed, and US led capitalist world order became dominant. This time around, it will be the capitalist order that crashes, and it will be replaced by socialist one led by China.
The war is a proxy war between NATO and Russia that started in 2014 after the Maidan coup. When NATO threatened to allow Ukraine to join, it was a major escalation that demanded a response from Russia. In that sense, their SMO is an act of self-defense. I unequivocally support Russia on this, not because I agree with the Russian government's domestic policy or long term vision for the world, but because NATO is the greater evil, and if they successfully contain Russia, then China is next, and we may never see a free world in our lifetimes.
2014 after the Maidan coup.
There was no such thing. Yanukovich broke his election promise regarding starting the EU association process, protests happened, snipers shooting at protesters and this law happend, which resulted in his impeachment and new elections.
Even if you consider his impeachment to be sus (the Rada played it fast and loose but has the power and had the votes) ordinary elections were held soon after, legitimising the following president (Poroshenko).
When NATO threatened to allow Ukraine to join
First off, There was never a point in time where Ukraine wasn't allowed to join in principle. Membership is generally open.
Secondly, regarding European geostrategy, NATO is irrelevant in this case as Ukraine wanted to join the EU and the EU, too, is a defensive alliance.
it was a major escalation that demanded a response from Russia.
Escalation of what? Russia's inability to re-constitute parts of its empire?
See, this is what really annoys me as a European: All these "NATO is threatening Russia" takes are incredibly Seppo-brained. Also, displaying the worst part of brainrot coming out of geostrategic Realism: They're predicated on the idea that the only states ever having any agency are the US and Russia (because "superpower") and everyone else is their pawn.
What possible reason could have countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have to join NATO? Might it have something to do with being invaded, time and time again in history, by Russia and treated as colonial subjects?
Russia has been conquering its neighbours before the US even existed. Or do you seriously think a continent-sized country comes along naturally, without conquest?
(Side note: You should look at the Soviet opinion on geostrategic Realism. They called it a fig-leaf for imperialism, which is a completely fair point -- and Russia, and anyone else using this "big player and a bunch of chesspieces without will of their own" model, is guilty of the same thing.)
but because NATO is the greater evil,
NATO is a fucking joke in this conflict. For one, the US has to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything. Turkey is being... Turkey. Even more, for many members it's a moderating force: If you ask Poles we should immediately put boots on the ground, march to Moscow, not worry about nukes it's more important Russia gets dismantled than us not getting glassed. That's the kind of attitude Russia has, over the centuries, imprinted in its neighbours.
On balance I'm in favour of dismantling NATO, with the caveat that without Europeans in the mix, the US might get worse. But that's a general point, "NATO good" or "NATO bad" doesn't really play into whether Russia is in the fault here. And it is: It violated the territoriality integrity of Ukraine, of borders it itself very much agreed to not so long ago.
What kind of precedent does that set, saying "Here, give up your nukes and we'll respect your borders" and then violating those very borders? When you go by "the purpose of a system is what it does" then boycotting nuclear non-proliferation seems to be what Russia is intent on doing because who is ever going to give up nukes if the result is getting invaded by a nuclear power.
Last, but not least: How can it be a bloody proxy war if Russia is participating directly. And Ukraine is fighting as a proxy for... Ukraine? Do words have meaning?
Colonialists gtfo
So we're just gonna ignore that the US admitted to installing Porochenko lol okay
Prior to 2014, Ukraine has usually had Russian-friendly governments. Some more than others, but relations between the two countries were generally close, if sometimes strained.
In 2014 there was a coup in the Ukraine (or a revolution, or a series of protests that resulted in the president stepping down, whatever) called Euromaidan. These protests involved Neo-Nazi paramilitary groups (which are very common in Ukraine) marching in the streets. The government that emerged afterwards was solidly anti-Russian.
Separatists in the Donbass region (Eastern Ukraine, the parts that Russia is now occupying, which is about 50% Russian) immediately began trying to secede. Elections stopped being held in these regions, solidifying the anti-Russian government. Crimea, which is almost 100% Russian, was retaken by Russia with almost no resistance.
The Ukrainian War started in 2014 when the post-Euromaidan Ukrainian government began using artillery, snipers, and fascist paramilitary volunteers against the Donbass separatists. 2022 was just when the Russians decided to get involved.
The Russian government claims that the invasion was in order to "De-Nazify" Ukraine. The motivation to protect the Russian ethnic minority was also clear, but since Russia is a multi-ethnic federation, saying this sort of thing is a political no-no in Russia.
In reality, Russia invaded because Ukraine was considering membership in NATO. In 2008, Georgia was similarly considering membership in NATO. Russia then invaded and liberated the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which remain independent to this day, and stationed troops in these regions permanently. This was done because, if they allowed Georgia into NATO, it would require NATO to defend Georgia; since NATO membership requires approval of all existing members, there is always going to be at least one member who is not eager for immediate war with Russia. This is the same thing that is happening in Ukraine: Russia is permanently occupying parts of Ukraine so that, if Ukraine were to join NATO, NATO would be obligated to "defend" them against Russia.
These protests involved Neo-Nazi paramilitary groups (which are very common in Ukraine) marching in the streets.
Which are more common in Russia and which didn't make up the bulk of the protests.
What you also fail to mention is that the protests started with Yanukovish breaking an electoral promise: Starting EU accession talks.
The government that emerged afterwards was solidly anti-Russian.
You mean that was elected.
The Ukrainian right wing, btw, saw an electoral loss in 2014, in 2012 Svoboda had 10%, in 2014 Svoboda + Right Sector 7%.
The Ukrainian War started in 2014
Indeed. But not with Ukraine bombing anything, but Russia annexing Crimea and sending little green men to Luhansk and Donbas. The "revolutions" there were Russian astroturf.
If you think that "Ukraine shelled Russians in the Donbas for eight years" then, how to put it best, take it up with Prigoshin. As well as reality. The reason Ukraine had so much trouble defending against that part of the invasion was precisely because it could not be met with military force. A police response would've been proper but by the time they figured that one out the Russian agents had already solidified their position.
The Russian government claims that the invasion was in order to “De-Nazify” Ukraine. The motivation to protect the Russian ethnic minority was also clear, but since Russia is a multi-ethnic federation, saying this sort of thing is a political no-no in Russia.
Ukraine is multi-ethnic, too. And no that isn't a taboo in Russia in the least. Everybody knows that Shoigu survived the shark tank that is the Kremlin because, as a Tuvan, he is no threat to whoever is currently president. Russia with a Tuvan head of state is unthinkable.
Zelensky, btw, is ethnically Russian.
The reason you hear "de-nazify" has nothing to do with actual Nazis, that's not how the word is used in Russia. It's simply "the enemy". Hence why they manage to call a Jew a Nazi. There's a lot of words which have strange meanings in Russia due to complete lack of political education. When Putin is saying "de-nazify" he's not talking to people who read Umberto Eco.
In reality, Russia invaded because Ukraine was considering membership in NATO.
That's part of it but not at all all. Ukraine was perfectly willing to let go of any NATO aspirations in the beginning of the invasion if Russia withdrew from Ukrainian territory (there would still be the EU, which is also a defensive alliance, but at least the Yanks would be out of the picture), Russia wasn't interested, what we instead got was Bucha so the option is off the table because no Ukrainian, no matter the ethnicity, believes any more that they will be safe outside of a 110% integration with the west.
There's another reason: Russian national mythos doesn't recognise Ukrainians as a separate ethnicity -- if you allow there to be a separate ethnicity Moscow couldn't claim to be the rightful successor to the Kyivan Rus, any more, a core aspect of its "justification" for imperialism ("Rightful ruler of all the Slavs here, and more"). The Russian empire never tolerated Ukraine as a place that should exist independently. If you want to read up on history, start in the 15th century with the Russification policies of the Empire. Russia has no such interest in Georgia.
This was done because, if they allowed Georgia into NATO, it would require NATO to defend Georgia; since NATO membership requires approval of all existing members, there is always going to be at least one member who is not eager for immediate war with Russia.
That's not how that works. If necessary NATO would have said "...excluding already occupied territories".
I think you may be downplaying the Denazify part of it. The fact that Ukraine has continually glorified genocidaires, put up monuments to them, incorporated neo-nazis into their government, armed them, and are supported by NATO, is something the entire world should be alarmed at. For example, Canada's deputy PM is a descendent of them and condones their actions, which is extremely troubling. Poland and the Israel regime have also condemned Ukraine in similar ways for this.
One of the main reasons for the original secession of the Donbass was like you said outright attacks, and attempting to "Ukrainize" the area language wise, which is absurd considering how similar the people are.
The Russian government claims that the invasion was in order to “De-Nazify” Ukraine.
This is really overstated. That reason was given amongst many others. The mass liberal media seized upon it and amplified it to ridicule it, even though it has a solid basis. Stating that was the reason for the invasion is simply false.
I'd point out that Ukrainians and Ukrainian government aren't Nazis, but they did have a paramilitary wing that is very much Nazi-inclined.
Still, that wasn't the reason for the invasion.
The entire conflict is that ugly battle between West and East, one in which West generally has an upper hand, but Russia as a more East-inclined force has a very strong interest.
Neither of the sides care of actual people on the ground, only of their superiority. And the Ukrainian government wants to remain in power, which is why they don't really try to regulate the situation either.
I too back China here - let's stop the hot war and take some time to figure it out. Yes, Russia will most likely have some territorial gains, but losing already-unstable Donbass that tried to join Russia for years is a small price to pay to stop the enormous bloodshed no civilian is interested in.
After that, the rest of Ukraine can get the protection of NATO to avoid the repeat of this scenario.
I take China's stance: please let's fucking talk this over because we're only doing more harm right now
But for this war to end Ukraine has to stop being outright nazis in service of imperialism. We need organizing of armed dissidence inside Ukraine. We need conscripted soldiers fragging their imperialist commanders stat
USA is controlling ukraine's government. They want to kill as many ukrainians and russians as possible. They must be stopped. Also, boris johnson prevented peace talks. To hell with him.
As long as the US continues to exist in the form it's in, it will either be at war or in a proxy war and people will be dying.
Big picture is, if Russia and Ukraine make peace, the US will start a new war somewhere else by invasion or proxy immediately afterwards.
So I'm not 100% on board with the sentiment that the war must end at any cost. We don't get peace if the war ends if it means the US will just kick off another one.
War is bad. But any scenario that diminishes US hegemony and its ability to wage war (whether that's in a peace treaty or in ongiong conflict) is preferable, because we'll never have peace in this world while those warmongers in DC are allowed to continue.
Revolutionary defeatism