The cold, hard truth in the war between Russia and Ukraine today is that Ukraine’s last-gasp offensive has failed, and no amount of spin will change the outcome.
What a long strange trip it's been. I remember back in the weeks leading up to the invasion I was posting about it and asking a Russian comrade and some other folks in the Marx Madness discord about the plausibility of all the fear mongering being drummed up by the west and we were all so sure that it was just bullshit noise like most other scare pieces written by western journalists, and then watching it happen in real time while knowing full well that this would be the inevitable outcome, and in spite of that all, this massive campaign of manufacturing consent to support Ukraine and stifle any attempts at peace talks has been pretty surreal.
It's almost an even more blatant example of drumming up nationalist fervor in the imperial core than even what I witnessed during the aftermath of 9/11. Like at least back then there was an actual attack on the US to point to as flimsy justification for war.
The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It's very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn't the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
Come now I am trying to ask questions in an attempt to get them to question the shit they have been immersed in from birth. As excellent a use of that emoji as that is I think we have a miniscule chance to maybe reach this person if we can get the gears turning.
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called "rules based international order" serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they're not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable?
Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can't seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so.
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico...) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can't even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says "nah," they're just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that's the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn't it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
Liberals always try to force leftists to 'pledge allegiance' to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I'll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
I'm saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else's homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn't make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that "starts a war" is the one that rolls their tanks first.
Yeah it's wild because back then I was called a terrorist sympathizer for being against literally turning Iraq and Afghanistan into a sea of glass, and now I get called a Putin apologist for holding a consistent and principled stance on the right of self determination for people in eastern Ukraine.
I keep getting called a tankie on twitter by people that have no fucking idea what anarchism is (and no shade on tankies yall are my comrades and I am actually helping an indigenous friend build an org centered around indigenous struggle in the imperial core centered on scientific socialism/decolonial Marxism)
Tfw you're one of te only principled anarchists online and trying to carry weight for an ideology consistently misunderstood by a b unch of teenagers.0
What a long strange trip it's been. I remember back in the weeks leading up to the invasion I was posting about it and asking a Russian comrade and some other folks in the Marx Madness discord about the plausibility of all the fear mongering being drummed up by the west and we were all so sure that it was just bullshit noise like most other scare pieces written by western journalists, and then watching it happen in real time while knowing full well that this would be the inevitable outcome, and in spite of that all, this massive campaign of manufacturing consent to support Ukraine and stifle any attempts at peace talks has been pretty surreal.
It's almost an even more blatant example of drumming up nationalist fervor in the imperial core than even what I witnessed during the aftermath of 9/11. Like at least back then there was an actual attack on the US to point to as flimsy justification for war.
Do you acknowledge that russia invaded and started a war against Ukraine?
Allow me to answer your question with a question: Do you believe in the right to self determination of people in the Donbas?
Through properly monitored and implemented referendums, yeah.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
And what gives you the right to determine what "properly monitored and implemented referendums" are?
Also Russia is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie just the same as the US so that argument holds zero water here.
I am genuinely curious what your metrics for what constitutes a legitimate referendum are.
Nothing to do with me. I'm a programmer lol
Nothing to do with the US. I wouldn't support them invading a neighbor after a bogus vote they arranged. Whataboutism.
Independent monitors to make sure the vote is fair.
And who are these independent monitors?
--Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It's very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn't the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
Oh yeah I quote from that book all the time at the cash register lol
No answer to that one.
You say this shit like it isn't a euphemism.
Democracy
Dictatorship
Come now I am trying to ask questions in an attempt to get them to question the shit they have been immersed in from birth. As excellent a use of that emoji as that is I think we have a miniscule chance to maybe reach this person if we can get the gears turning.
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called "rules based international order" serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they're not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can't seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
So no answer then?
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
You still did not answer my question:
What constitutes - in your eyes- "properly monitored"?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
You literally did not answer the question.
What do you consider to be "properly monitored"?
Also I have never once posted or even visited the Nazi shithole that is 4chan so nice ad hominem.
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico...) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can't even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says "nah," they're just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that's the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn't it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
They literally asked for protection because they tried to do what you said they should and were met by siege warfare from their own government.
Liberals always try to force leftists to 'pledge allegiance' to hyperfocused truisms that they take in isolation and try to make determinative of the entire subject.
I'll bite. Yes. Russia invaded. No. Russia did not start a war with Ukraine. They joined an existing war with Ukraine in progress.
That they started by taking Crimea, exactly.
So you just have no idea what I'm talking about, then?
I bet you watched Trump's impeachment with baited breath. Do you even remember what it was about?
You folks are wild. You act as though history somehow emerged from a stagnant singularity in 2014.
This is what no historical materialism does to a mfer.
Crimea also voted on a referendum.
If you somehow uphold US/imperialist approved votes over any other countries' idk what to tell you.
Apologists always want to go back to who really threw the first stone, as if Russia has been a great world citizen this whole time and as if imperialist invasion was a great way to reduce sanctions or increase economic cooperation
You talk about Russia being a “good world citizen” as though western powers have universally dealt with Russia in good faith. You posit that Russia should turn to means like diplomacy in order to alleviate the sanctions that have been placed upon them and to increase economic cooperation with countries with are subject to NATO influences like Ukraine, but this ignores the fact that western powers have attempted to undermine Russia’s economy for their own benefit since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as well as the fact that measures such as the aforementioned sanctions placed upon Putin’s Russia have been put in place because of his refusal to completely open the country’s markets to predatory foreign interests.
If you’re interested, I suggest you read this article (which appears to be more sympathetic to NATO than myself and most other leftists on Lemmy), since it describes the economic devastation which occurred in Russia in the 1990s, the way in which Putin’s government has kept a complete catastrophe from happening again (although I wouldn’t say that Russia’s current right-wing, hyper nationalistic model for trade is ideal or that it’s anything to strive for, since inequality is still rampant in the country), and the way in which the United States and its allies pressure other countries into opening their markets to free trade only to exploit them once they do. If you don’t have the time to read it, just know that the west’s antagonizing of Russia is the cause of the latter’s lack of diplomatic cooperation with the former, and not the Russian government’s political or economic ambitions.
I do not and would never pretend like other governments act in good faith: two things can be bad at the same time without whataboutism. Have a great weekend, comrade!
Well they were, for the most part, until the illegal dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
Are you saying who started the war isn't relevant? Why would you not want to determine this to have a full picture of the situation?
I'm saying if you go all the way back to who looked at who wrong in the lunch line in 1963, you can try to justify anyone invading anyone else's homes with tanks and missiles, but that doesn't make it an actual valid justification. Generally the party that "starts a war" is the one that rolls their tanks first.
Am I a liberal? News to me. I seek no pledge from you. Stop chasing shadows.
What war was Ukraine involved in with russia?
You sure sound like one.
What can I say? I cannot change the way you process information.
Perhaps you were wrong?
You could start by actually answering any of my questions.
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
deleted by creator
This means nothing to an adult, it means everything to a child.
deleted by creator
Ok. Then say it if you think that. Reverting to a picture as an answer is rarely a valid response imho.
It is when the person being replied to is clearly engaging in bad faith and refusing to answer the simplest of questions.
Ditto
The jingoism has definitely been beyond anything I'd seen so far, post 9/11 included.
Yeah it's wild because back then I was called a terrorist sympathizer for being against literally turning Iraq and Afghanistan into a sea of glass, and now I get called a Putin apologist for holding a consistent and principled stance on the right of self determination for people in eastern Ukraine.
I keep getting called a tankie on twitter by people that have no fucking idea what anarchism is (and no shade on tankies yall are my comrades and I am actually helping an indigenous friend build an org centered around indigenous struggle in the imperial core centered on scientific socialism/decolonial Marxism)
A terrorist sympathizer or a slur, remember it was the early 2000's
The amount of times I heard the phrase "sand n-word" still sticks with me.
'orcs' is just so much less jarring this time around right?
spoiler
Tfw you're one of te only principled anarchists online and trying to carry weight for an ideology consistently misunderstood by a b unch of teenagers.0